Research into Christianity
Jim Reynolds
For the Christians, and those who believe in that 'Christian' rhetoric:
Your book, 1 John, 3 Chapter Verses 7-11 (KJV)
7.
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness
is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8.
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from
the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that
he might destroy the works of the devil.
9.
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth
in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10.
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the
devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he
that loveth not his brother.
11.
For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
should love one another.
In Plain Modern English
7.
It is SIMPLE, do not let someone try to tell you differently: anyone
that does good is good just like God himself.
8.
Anyone that does things which they know is wrong is of the devil;
because the devil has been the opposite of good ever since the
beginning. SATAN means adversary, or against something. Because of
this, the truth that shows everyone what is right and wrong is seen
by everyone, so that everyone has a chance to destroy the devil.
9.
Anybody that is born of God does not sin; because the seed of God
remains in the person who is born of God.
10.
Because of this simple concept, the things which people do are seen
by everyone. Whoever does things which are not good is not of God,
neither is anyone who hates another.
11.
This is the same old babble you have always heard, you should love
everyone because love is good, and good is God.
Commentary
One can easily make a deep philosophical dialog regarding the definitions
of many words. However, let us break down each thought and through
deduction bring forth the obvious.
I will begin with one basic belief that does not require a belief of gods,
spirits, and witchcraft. The belief that everyone knows 'good' from 'bad',
or 'right' from 'wrong'. At first glance one would say that is not
accurate because right and wrong is subjective. The subjectiveness of
right and wrong is irrelevant. If you do something wrong you know it.
Unless I am insane, and actually do hear voices in my head, or I am the
only one who knows right and wrong.
What is right? What is wrong? What is good? What is bad? Let us again use
deduction. Is vanilla ice cream good? You know this answer. Does a cat
feal good when it lays down in warm sunshine? Ah, it seems everyone does
know what is good and what is not. What kind of man would beg for a knife
for which he will use to castrate himself? Why don't you do this? Seems if
one did not know good from bad all sorts of things would happen. One might
just jump out of a fast moving vehicle during mid conversation. Obviously
one must know what is good and what isn't. Again I could ask if we had no
idea then how could we form laws for people to be governed by. It seems at
the very least someone must have this skill. Maybe only Federal and World
Court Judges know right from wrong.
There is no need in breaking down the 'how old must a baby be before it is
ok to abort'. If one were to attempt to write down 'good' they would be
writing all day. Simply because of its 'subjectiveness'. In regards to,
'Is it ok for two people of the same sex to marry?' or 'How old must a
baby be before it is considered not bad to perform an abortion?' Come
on... why are we even asking such a question? I always tell people, rather
than waste our time debating if something is right or wrong, or good or
bad let us first define what is right and wrong. Alas, we approach the
fundamental problem! If we have no definition then why waste our time
making laws? Of course any wise person knows why these questions are
asked. One fundamental reason is the innate desire that humans want to
know the truth. Why do you think you have scientists? People scour their
planet everyday for more knowledge. Like a moth flying to a porch light
man inevitably will be drawn to the light. He will always continue until
his answers are satisfied.
Through deduction we can now say we have a clear definition of good and
bad, right and wrong. If using such an elementary definition of good and
bad how would one of those Christian verses look?
Perhaps all that nonsense the Christians parrot about Jesus saving them
from their sins was true after all. I am curious though, if Jesus saved
people from their sins, then why is there so much sinning? Oh and for
those not familiar with that silly religious word sin here is the
definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sin
defined: Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly
wrong.
Sin is just a word with a religious spin on it that means wrong, against
some god. Christians claim their God is good, according to their book.
They even claim he is love. I think often the confusion lies somewhere in
that definition. It seems God is just something one worships. In essence
the atheist may just well have a god of 'I don't believe in God'. Ones
belief in god or not is irrelevant. God is just a title, rather an
adjective. To say one does not believe in God would be similar to saying
'I don't believe in president.'
In conclusion, I gather that God, the ONE ALL TIME GOD of ALL, the ONE -
would be the very definition of GOOD. Suppose one were to actually do good
regardless of the cost to themselves? Seems that if one was 'born of God'
that would be the status of an individual. Furthermore, it seems that that
one would be as GOD.
Jim Reynolds
blog at inetg dot net
DW Suiter
"Jim Reynolds" <bl...@inetg.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.24....@inetg.net...
Wrong. The words you quote were sent to people of God who had gained
knowledge of truth from God thereby knowing right from wrong by "objective"
principle.
The subjectiveness of
> right and wrong is irrelevant. If you do something wrong you know it.
> Unless I am insane, and actually do hear voices in my head, or I am the
> only one who knows right and wrong.
No person can know right from wrong according tot he higher principles of
God unless they have been taught these by God.
>
> What is right? What is wrong? What is good? What is bad? Let us again use
> deduction. Is vanilla ice cream good? You know this answer. Does a cat
> feal good when it lays down in warm sunshine? Ah, it seems everyone does
> know what is good and what is not. What kind of man would beg for a knife
> for which he will use to castrate himself? Why don't you do this? Seems if
> one did not know good from bad all sorts of things would happen. One might
> just jump out of a fast moving vehicle during mid conversation. Obviously
> one must know what is good and what isn't. Again I could ask if we had no
> idea then how could we form laws for people to be governed by. It seems at
> the very least someone must have this skill. Maybe only Federal and World
> Court Judges know right from wrong.
Your reasoning is entirely subjective.
By not knowing God you cannot possibly speak truth about God. Very simple
logic and reasoning.
DW Suiter
Son of God
Frank Trebor
"Jim Reynolds" <bl...@inetg.net> wrote ...
> http://blog.inetg.net/
Why did you include this website?
It is simply a repeat of what you have posted here!
> One can easily make a deep philosophical dialog regarding the definitions
> of many words. However, let us break down each thought and through
> deduction bring forth the obvious.
Why would you want to do this?
> I will begin with one basic belief that does not require a belief of gods,
> spirits, and witchcraft. The belief that everyone knows 'good' from 'bad',
> or 'right' from 'wrong'. At first glance one would say that is not
> accurate because right and wrong is subjective. The subjectiveness of
> right and wrong is irrelevant. If you do something wrong you know it.
> Unless I am insane, and actually do hear voices in my head, or I am the
> only one who knows right and wrong.
Not so! No human is born with ANY knowledge.
Everything you "know" has been taught to you.
<>< much diatribe snipped ><>
> Perhaps all that nonsense the Christians parrot about Jesus saving them
> from their sins was true after all. I am curious though, if Jesus saved
> people from their sins, then why is there so much sinning? Oh and for
> those not familiar with that silly religious word sin here is the
> definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sin
> defined: Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly
Without God's Word ( the Hopy Bible ) NO ONE would even know
right and wrong, as it IS God who laid down the LAW in the first place.
And "SIN" is the transgression of God's LAW!
Is not going to "church" regarded as being shameful, deplorable,
or utterly wrong? I don't think so,
But it is a sin as it breraks God's LAW.
<>< more diatribe snipped ><>
> In conclusion, I gather that God, the ONE ALL TIME GOD of ALL, the ONE -
> would be the very definition of GOOD. Suppose one were to actually do good
> regardless of the cost to themselves? Seems that if one was 'born of God'
> that would be the status of an individual. Furthermore, it seems that that
> one would be as GOD.
Jim Reynolds, you sound like an ex-pat Mormon!
You, by your own admission are not a believer.
Why are you posting in a "Christian" news group?
What is your REAL motive, as it appears to me that
you are not here to learn?
Or are you simply playing at being satan's advocate?
Family Man
> For the Christians, and those who believe in that 'Christian' rhetoric:
> Your book, 1 John, 3 Chapter Verses 7-11 (KJV)
Why Bother?
K-town
There are two kinds of people who consistently commit senseless "sinful"
acts: Psychopaths, and Sociopaths. A psychopath is insane and knows no
difference between "right" and "wrong". A sociopath knows the difference,
but just doesn't care. People, in essence, are all one of the two. With
out God to convict our hearts of sinful acts, we would all be Sociopaths.
>
> What is right? What is wrong? What is good? What is bad? Let us again use
> deduction. Is vanilla ice cream good? You know this answer. Does a cat
> feal good when it lays down in warm sunshine? Ah, it seems everyone does
> know what is good and what is not. What kind of man would beg for a knife
> for which he will use to castrate himself? Why don't you do this? Seems if
> one did not know good from bad all sorts of things would happen. One might
> just jump out of a fast moving vehicle during mid conversation. Obviously
> one must know what is good and what isn't. Again I could ask if we had no
> idea then how could we form laws for people to be governed by. It seems at
> the very least someone must have this skill. Maybe only Federal and World
> Court Judges know right from wrong.
The knowledge of right and wrong comes from God's Law. (Ever heard of the
Ten Commandments) ANY sin committed today can be attributed to the breaking
of one of those commandments. Example: A man embezzles from his company:
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. Murder: THOU SHALT NOT KILL A person who is
absorbed in himself, his money, and possessions: THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ANY
OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. A husband or wife has an affair: THOU SHALT NOT
COMMIT ADULTERY. A child takes a cookie and eats it before dinnertime when
he has been told many times not to do so: HONOR AND OBEY THY FATHER AND
MOTHER. I think you can get the point.
>
> There is no need in breaking down the 'how old must a baby be before it is
> ok to abort'.
Abortion = MURDER. Life begins as soon as the sperm enters the egg. From
the first live cell, it is a child, with a soul.
If one were to attempt to write down 'good' they would be
> writing all day. Simply because of its 'subjectiveness'. In regards to,
> 'Is it ok for two people of the same sex to marry?'
SODOMY = SIN The Bible clearly states this in the book of Romans.
or 'How old must a
> baby be before it is considered not bad to perform an abortion?' Come
> on... why are we even asking such a question? I always tell people, rather
> than waste our time debating if something is right or wrong, or good or
> bad let us first define what is right and wrong. Alas, we approach the
> fundamental problem! If we have no definition then why waste our time
> making laws? Of course any wise person knows why these questions are
> asked. One fundamental reason is the innate desire that humans want to
> know the truth. Why do you think you have scientists? People scour their
> planet everyday for more knowledge. Like a moth flying to a porch light
> man inevitably will be drawn to the light. He will always continue until
> his answers are satisfied.
All of our nation's laws were originally built based upon the Ten
Commandments. The laws that are being made today are Man's laws because
this nation, and its leaders are turning their backs on God, the Bible, and
the Ten Commandments.
> Through deduction we can now say we have a clear definition of good and
> bad, right and wrong. If using such an elementary definition of good and
> bad how would one of those Christian verses look?
>
> Perhaps all that nonsense the Christians parrot about Jesus saving them
> from their sins was true after all. I am curious though, if Jesus saved
> people from their sins, then why is there so much sinning?
Jesus died to take the PENALTY of sin so we could go to Heaven after we die.
"For the wages of sin is death." (That means eternal death...i.e. in Hell)
He did not die to stop sin from existing. As long as Satan is in this
world, there will ALWAYS be sin.
Oh and for
> those not familiar with that silly religious word sin here is the
> definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sin
> defined: Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly
> wrong.
>
> Sin is just a word with a religious spin on it that means wrong, against
> some god. Christians claim their God is good, according to their book.
> They even claim he is love. I think often the confusion lies somewhere in
> that definition. It seems God is just something one worships. In essence
> the atheist may just well have a god of 'I don't believe in God'. Ones
> belief in god or not is irrelevant. God is just a title, rather an
> adjective. To say one does not believe in God would be similar to saying
> 'I don't believe in president.'
God is love. We cannot attempt to logically break Him down and understand
all that He is. The human mind cannot comprehend a being that is 100%
omnipotent, omnipresent, and exists as 3 entities but is still only ONE God.
(Trinity = God the Father, God the Son {Jesus}, and God the Holy Spirit)
The Bible says that we have to come to God with the faith of a child: Just
accept Him for who and what He is without trying to have a technical
analysis of his existence and capabilities.
> In conclusion, I gather that God, the ONE ALL TIME GOD of ALL, the ONE -
> would be the very definition of GOOD. Suppose one were to actually do good
> regardless of the cost to themselves? Seems that if one was 'born of God'
> that would be the status of an individual. Furthermore, it seems that that
> one would be as GOD.
God is the definition of GOOD. He is the perfect example of all
righteousness. It is a level of righteousness that no human being can
obtain. Since we are human, it is our nature to sin. As I said earlier, we
would sin constantly and without remorse if it weren't for God convicting
our hearts of our sin. A person "born of God" is a metaphor for being born
of God spiritually. No person does good for no reason. They do good
because they want a reward. The reward could be recognition, money, or, in
Christians' case, to please God. When I manage to abstain from sin, I know
that I have pleased God, and being in God's favor is the best place to be in
all existence. When I do sin, I know by the conviction in my heart that I
have hurt Him, and my soul aches because of it. I have to ask his
forgiveness and try my best not to do it again, regardless of the
temptation. However, doing good will NOT grant you salvation. Salvation is
a FREE GIFT. You have to accept it. After you accept it, you must have a
personal relationship with God, therefore making the desire to do good in
His sight. If there is no relationship, then you have not truly accepted
it, you have not surrendered your all to Him, and therefore there is no
salvation. From reading what you posted, I can tell that you need some
serious guidance regarding the Christian faith. You should seek the counsel
of a church pastor or deacon (any denomination you desire: Baptist,
Lutheran, Methodist, etc.) to help you see the Light. Jesus is the Way, the
Truth, and the Life. No one cometh unto the Father except by Him. He is
the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End; the great "I Am"; King of
Kings, Lord of Lords; in short: ALMIGHTY GOD.
Stephen Poley
wrote:
>The knowledge of right and wrong comes from God's Law. (Ever heard of the
>Ten Commandments)
Most people have heard of the ten commandments of the bible. Very, very
few people know what they are.
>ANY sin committed today can be attributed to the breaking
>of one of those commandments. Example: A man embezzles from his company:
>THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. Murder: THOU SHALT NOT KILL A person who is
>absorbed in himself, his money, and possessions: THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ANY
>OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. A husband or wife has an affair: THOU SHALT NOT
>COMMIT ADULTERY. A child takes a cookie and eats it before dinnertime when
>he has been told many times not to do so: HONOR AND OBEY THY FATHER AND
>MOTHER.
And you don't know what they are either. See
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/mistaeks/tencommandments.html
--
Stephen Poley
Pastor Frank
news:4vd0j0l881aj8sif5...@4ax.com...
adhere to them you will be so insufferably proud of yourself, that you will
surely go to hell. It's called the "curse of the law".
Pastor Frank
THE COMMANDMENTS THE LORD GAVE MOSES
on Mount Sinai to the Israelites. See Lev 34.
Lev. 9 "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He
has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife
of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his
father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will
be on their own heads.
12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be
put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on
their own heads.
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them
have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be
on their own heads.
14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both
he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among
you.
15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to
death, and you must kill the animal.
16 " 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it,
kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads.
17 " 'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or
his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be
cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and
will be held responsible.
18 " 'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has
sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she
has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.
19 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your
mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you
would be held responsible.
20 " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They
will be held responsible; they will die childless.
21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he
has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
22 " 'Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land
where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.
23 You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going
to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.
24 But I said to you, "You will possess their land; I will give it to
you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD
your God, who has set you apart from the nations.
25 " 'You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean
animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by
any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground-those which I
have set apart as unclean for you.
26 You are to be holy to me [3] because I, the LORD , am holy, and I
have set you apart from the nations to be my own.
27 "A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be
put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own
heads."
Lev 21: 9 " 'If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a
prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "When men strive together one with another, and
the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand
of him that smiteth him and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the
secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her"
K-town
Mother" Even if it isn't one of the "actual ten", as you say, it is still
something God commanded us all to do.
Jonathan
"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpi...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4vd0j0l881aj8sif5...@4ax.com...
K-town
news:t62Yc.6166$ln4....@fe51.usenetserver.com...
Leviticus 34? Leviticus only has 27 chapters.... It's Leviticus 20:9-27
Leonard Pardin
> Nevertheless, the point is, God DID say, "Honor and obey thy Father and
> Mother" Even if it isn't one of the "actual ten", as you say, it is still
> something God commanded us all to do.
>
> Jonathan
If you are a Christian, then you should follow the commandments
listed by Jesus. There are only six:
Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master,
what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is
none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life,
keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no
murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou
shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.
So you see, you can forget all about the Old Testament--Jesus did.
Jesus ignored all that guff about keeping the Sabbath, dietary rules,
not speaking the name of God, and idolatry. Jesus rejected Moses's
rules about stoning sinners and divorce. Jesus was not a Jew.
And not being a Jew, Jesus's message is not of the Jewish Old
Testament. Jesus spurned the Old Testament examples of murder, incest,
and pillaging. Jesus called the Old Testament promoters vipers, liars,
and sons of satan. He hated them and warned his followers against
following them. Everything Jesus said and did during his short life
was the antithesis of the profane teachings of the Old Testament.
So Christians should shun Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, and Genesis,
and Exodus, and all the rest of the Old Testament horror tales--they
are all nonsense and nonChristian. Christianity is the opposite of Old
Testament teachings.
K-town
teachings and principles regarding the values and ethics still remain the
same. i.e. We still should remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy, but we
won't be put to death for working on the Sabbath, which was the penalty
during the Old Testament. Also, we should definitely not have any other
gods or idols before God. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the
Life, and no man commeth unto the Father except by Me." So the first
priority in our lives should always be Him. Otherwise, we are committing
idolatry and cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. In short, since Jesus died
for our sins, the PENALTIES no longer apply. He paid the penalty for us all
with His death. Sin is still sin, regardless of what year we are in, and we
should try our best to abstain from it. But, since Jesus knew that no human
can be perfect, He died so that we no longer have to be concerned with being
put to death or having to sacrifice an animal on an altar for breaking a
commandment.
Jonathan
"Leonard Pardin" <leop...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:d746a243.04083...@posting.google.com...
Leonard Pardin
> The Old Testament is specifically for historical purposes.
The Old Testament is specifically for mythical purposes. That's
all it is: a book of myths. Archeologists have searched the entire
region from Iraq to Egypt over the last 70 years. They have uncovered
incredible details of the lives and history of the ancients,
discovered indisputable evidence of ancient Egyptian, Babylonian,
Akkadian, and Assyrian laws, customs and civilizations. They
confirmed details of the governments occupying the Middle East along
with evidence of great armies of Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians,
Akkadians, Hurrians, and Greeks sweeping the area of Syria-Palestine.
They have translated ancient writings from the Phoenicians, the
Greeks, the Indians, the Hurrians, and the Moabites. But they have
found nothing to support the existence of any great kingdom of Israel.
No records of any significant Jewish country or any viable Jewish
civilization can be found.
And the famous Biblical Patriarchs? Not a sign of them. Not a sign
of Moses, or Noah, or Solomon, or any of the Hebrew heroes. The
Isrelites did not sojourn to Egypt, did not escape from Pharoah's
chariots, did not conquer Jericho or any other city in Canaan. David
did not kill Goliath, Noah did not build an ark, and Moses was not
left in the bulrushes. Those stories are, in fact, slightly twisted
ancient tales from Babylon and Assyria, from epics like Gilgamesh and
the recorded annals of ancient Assyrian kings. The Old Testament, The
Torah, is a book of myths, copied and compiled sometime after the
birth of Christianity
Rafeek
wrote:
>
>"Jim Reynolds" <bl...@inetg.net> wrote in message
>Abortion = MURDER. Life begins as soon as the sperm enters the egg. From
>the first live cell, it is a child, with a soul.
Really? How do you arrive at this conclusion? Is it somewhere in the
bible, or have you arbitrarily declared it so?
mclark
Undoubtedly as a consequence of man's sinful nature, God said that he
had to speak to the prophets in riddles (Numbers 12:6-8). So it's not
surprising to consider that the OT contains allegorical writings.
(Likewise, it's not surprising that Jesus was known to speak in
parables.) In fact, not only did the prophecies fortelling of the 1st
coming of Jesus go right over the heads of the Pharisees of Jesus' time,
but Luke 24:44-45 shows that Jesus even had to open the minds of his
apostles to the Scriptures.
Jesus' Holy Spirit now opens our minds to the Scriptures (John 16:12-15)
but only if we invite the Spirit to do so. But if you resist the
Spirit's guidance then you are no better off than 1 Corinthians 1:18-19.
Indeed, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith and have
eternal life.
M. Clark
Pastor Frank
news:10933815...@drone1-svc-skyt.qsi.net.nz...
empathy, and knowing good from evil. It's called original sin, -meaning
being opinionated and judgmental. But we think ourselves smart and superior,
when we are able to lawyer ourselves into doing, if not also self-justifying
doing the opposite to others, from what we expect them to do unto us.
Christ came to save us (from ourselves).
Pastor Frank
THE ROYAL LAW OF CHRIST
**Jesus in Mk 12:30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength: this is the first commandment.
**31: And the second is alike, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
**Jesus in Mat 22:40 "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
commandments."
THE GOLDEN RULE OF CHRIST
Jesus in Matt. 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them...."
Pastor Frank
news:lHQWc.132260$sh.26050@fed1read06...
interest in the subject, do you?
Pastor Frank
troll (trol) verb
To post a message in a newsgroup or other online conference in the hopes
that somebody else will consider the original message so outrageous that it
demands a heated reply. A classic example of a troll is to post an article
in favor of torturing cats in a pet lovers' newsgroup.
Pastor Frank
news:d746a243.04083...@posting.google.com...
news:<q92Yc.6145$LH6.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> >
> > Nevertheless, the point is, God DID say, "Honor and obey thy Father and
> > Mother" Even if it isn't one of the "actual ten", as you say, it is
still
> > something God commanded us all to do.
>
Jew AND Christian. They just ignore unfashionable passages. There are
atheists who are quite good at spoofing that kind of believer and write
comical parody in the name of "True Christians®" under the slogan "All the
Bible All the Way". See below sample:
Pastor Frank
TRUE CHRISTIAN® DOCTRINE REGARDING WARFARE
10.AFTER CONQUERING A CITY, IF YOU FIND A DECENT LOOKING WOMAN UNDER ONE OF
THOSE BEE KEEPER OUTFITS, MAKE HER YOUR SLAVE.
Deuteronomy 20:13-14 "And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city]
into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the
sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is
in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself".
Numbers 31:7-9 "And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD
commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. . . . And the children of
Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and
took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their
goods".
9.THOUGH INCONVENIENT, WHEN KILLING THE PEOPLE, BE SURE TO NOT TO HURT
THEIR TREES ('CAUSE THAT WOULD BE WASTEFUL).
Deuteronomy 20:19 "When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making
war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by
forcing an axe against them: for thou mayeth eat of them, and thou shalt not
cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in
the siege".
8.DON'T STOP WITH KILLING THEIR SOLDIERS. RUB IT IN. DIP YOUR FEET IN
THEIR BLOOD AND LET YOUR DOGS DRINK IT.
Psalms 68:21-23 "But God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the
hairy scalp of such an one as goeth on still in his trespasses. The Lord
said, I will bring again from Bashan, I will bring my people again from the
depths of the sea: That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine
enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same".
7.DON'T ANONYMOUSLY KILL BIN LADEN AND OMAR IN A BOMBING RAID. AFTER
KILLING THEIR FOLLOWERS, PUBLICLY HANG THEM FOR ALL TO SEE.
Joshua 8:26-29 "For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he
stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants
of Ai. . . . And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a
desolation unto this day. And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until
eventide".
6.GIVE THEM A TASTE OF THEIR OWN MEDICINE. CUT OFF THEIR HANDS AND FEET
BEFORE HANGING THEM.
2 Samuel 4:12 "And David commanded his young men, and they slew them,
and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up over the pool in
Hebron".
5.NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH THE ENEMY. KILL THEM, SHOWING NO MERCY AT ALL.
Deuteronomy 7:2 "And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before
thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no
covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them".
4.DON'T BE A SISSY. HAVE NO COMPASSION FOR THESE INFIDELS. KILL THEM
WHILE THEY'RE PRAYING IN CHURCH. KILL YOUNG AND OLD ALIKE, AND EVEN THOSE
TOO FEEBLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
2 Chronicles 36:16-17 "But they mocked the messengers of God, and
despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord
arose against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought
upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword
in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or
maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his
hand".
3.DON'T JUST KILL THE HEATHENS. STEAL THEIR PROPERTY AND GIVE IT TO
CHELMSFORD CHRISTIAN CENTRE.
Joshua 6:24 "And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was
therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of
iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the Lord".
2.DON'T WASTE MONEY ON P.O.W. CAMPS. THROW YOUR CAPTIVES OFF A CLIFF.
2 Chronicles 25:9-12 "And Amaziah said to the man of God, But what shall
we do for the hundred talents which I have given to the army of Israel? And
the man of God answered, The Lord is able to give thee much more than this.
. . . And Amaziah strengthened himself . . . and smote the children of Seir
ten thousand. And other ten thousand left alive did the children of Judah
carry away captive, and brought them unto the top of the rock, and cast them
down from the top of the rock, that they all were broken in pieces".
1.JUST REMEMBER THIS SIMPLE RULE: KILL "EVERYTHING THAT BREATHES" AND
DESTROY EVERYTHING IN SIGHT, EXCEPT LITTLE GIRLS THAT IS. THOSE YOU KEEP
ALIVE FOR YOUR OWN PLEASURE.
Deuteronomy 20:16 "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy
God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that
breatheth".
1 Samuel 13:15 "Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city [of
nonbelievers] with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all
that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword".
Joshua 10:29-30 "And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with
the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and
all the souls that were therein; he let none remain: and he did to the king
of Makkedah as he did unto the king of Jerico. Then Joshua passed from
Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah:
And the Lord delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of
Israel: and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that
were therein; he let none remain in it".
1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that
they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass".
Moses in Numbers 31:17-18 "Now therefore kill every male among the
little ones, and kill every woman, that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the female children, that have not known man by lying with him,
keep alive for yourself".
--
Broomleigh Baptist Church
"All the Bible, all the time"
http://church.broomleigh.org
K-town
news:1sicj0h048rbdekra...@4ax.com...
Yes it is in the Bible. Not so much as the term "abortion" in itself, but
as far as the definition of life. Read this:
http://www.bible.ca/s-Abortion.htm
Jonathan
Rafeek
wrote:
>"Rafeek" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:1sicj0h048rbdekra...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:59:46 GMT, "K-town" <jdu5...@carolina.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Reynolds" <bl...@inetg.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>Abortion = MURDER. Life begins as soon as the sperm enters the egg. From
>>>the first live cell, it is a child, with a soul.
>>
>> Really? How do you arrive at this conclusion? Is it somewhere in the
>> bible, or have you arbitrarily declared it so?
>
>Yes it is in the Bible. Not so much as the term "abortion" in itself, but
>as far as the definition of life. Read this:
>
>http://www.bible.ca/s-Abortion.htm
Perhaps you could sift through the propaganda for me and present the
relevant scripture that explicitly states "from the first live cell,
Leonard Pardin
Look at the gory tales shown by the excerpts quoted by another
poster in this thread--they are hardly "allegorical." The Old
Testament depicts a deity that drinks blood, condones child murder,
rape, incest, and mass slaughter of men, women, and even animals. If
anyone can accept that monstrous ogre as the God of Jesus, something
is terribly wrong. Christianity cannot survive such contradictions in
morality and righteousness. A religion without a consistent creed will
eventually fail in its mission. And who can doubt Christianity is
missing the mark today.
> (Likewise, it's not surprising that Jesus was known to speak in
> parables.) In fact, not only did the prophecies fortelling of the 1st
> coming of Jesus go right over the heads of the Pharisees of Jesus' time,
> but Luke 24:44-45 shows that Jesus even had to open the minds of his
> apostles to the Scriptures.
Jesus did not open the minds of his followers to be filled with the
sewage of the Old Testament. Jesus warned his followers not to follow
the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the preachers of that very dogma
found in the Old Testament. Jesus rejected the Old Testament
mythology.
>
> Jesus' Holy Spirit now opens our minds to the Scriptures (John 16:12-15)
> but only if we invite the Spirit to do so. But if you resist the
> Spirit's guidance then you are no better off than 1 Corinthians 1:18-19.
>
> Indeed, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith and have
> eternal life.
>
> M. Clark
One cannot truly believe in Jesus, cannot follow Jesus's gentle
admonitions, cannot walk in the path of Jesus, and at the same time
accept the notion that the great God that sent the sinless Jesus was
the same demon that ordered Moses, Joshua, Saul, and David to
slaughter every living thing in the conquered Canaanite villages. Can
one turn the other cheek while at the same praying that God will
inflict on our enemies disease, locust, frogs, and the death of their
first born, as the demon Yahweh is supposed to have visited on the
innocent Egyptians?
Even if the Old Testament can be considered "allegorical," the
lessons to be learned from such examples are the antitheses of
everything Jesus taught, everything Jesus stood for, everything Jesus
died for.
The Old Testament is the albatross around the neck of Christianity.
Like that ancient mariner, let us all to pray to God that the
Christian Churches of the world will break the cord holding that
putrid and smelly corpse and let it fall into the sea of eternity,
never to harm Christians again.
K-town
Maybe this link will be more beneficial to you:
http://jesuschristsavior.net/prolife.html
I doubt you'll find that exact phrase, "from the first live cell, it is a
child, with a soul," but let's look at this logically & Biblically at the
same time: God is the author of human life. It is He that gave each human
a soul. Now, this part is scientific & medical fact: When the male sperm
cell enters the female egg cell and is fertilized, the cell now has 46
chromosomes, just like every cell in the human body. Provided the mother's
uterus is a hospitable environment, the egg cell will divide into 16 cells
before moving into the uterus and begin the process of developing into a
human baby. If the first cell was not alive, it could not divide, and
therefore not develop into anything. (Every science book I read in school
said that the "chain" of living things begins at single-celled organisms.
i.e. An amoeba is a single-celled organism. Is it a living thing? Of
course!) Menstruation is what occurs when an egg cell is not fertilized. It
moves to the uterus as a dead, unfertilized cell, and is "flushed" out of
her uterus. Now, assuming the fertilized egg makes it to the uterus, it
WILL develop into a living, breathing, human baby. Going back to the
Biblical part, since God gave each human a soul, and He knows that this
"egg-cell" WILL eventually develop into a baby, why should he wait until it
is in the third trimester, or until birth before giving it a soul? (Read
Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 49:1, and most importantly, Jeremiah
1:5 - they're all cited in that link) Do I know for an absolute 100% fact
that God gives that single, 46-chromosome cell a soul? I can't say that God
specifically told me that. But, as I said before, why would he wait until
later? He knows it is going to develop into a human baby. Who is to say
that a soul cannot fit inside of a single cell? I'll tell you what, though:
Regarding the exact time when the baby-to-be receives his/her soul, when I
go to Heaven, I'll ask God when I see Him. If you happen to be there, you
can ask Him too. ;-)
Jonathan
mclark
Where are you coming from?
Galatians 4:24, Hebrews 11:19 and Revelation 11:18 all indicate that
certain writings in the Scriptures are allegorical.
That's some really "objective" research into Christianity that you're
doing Mr. Pardin.
M. Clark
Rafeek
wrote:
Assuming XYZ conditions (becoming fertilized, etc.), an ovum will
develop into a living, breathing, human baby also. Isn't it kind of
arbitrary to wait until fertilization to claim it has a 'soul'?
>Going back to the
>Biblical part, since God gave each human a soul, and He knows that this
>"egg-cell" WILL eventually develop into a baby,
...if xyz conditions are met...
>why should he wait until it
>is in the third trimester, or until birth before giving it a soul?
Why wait until fertilization? Maybe all eggs and sperm have souls
too...?
> (Read
>Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 49:1, and most importantly, Jeremiah
>1:5 - they're all cited in that link) Do I know for an absolute 100% fact
>that God gives that single, 46-chromosome cell a soul?
Well... since you're religious, we probably shouldn't 'go there' about
what you know for a fact or not... i.e. that any supernatural event
(even one!) or being has ever occurred or existed.
Aaron Hopper
"Leonard Pardin" <leop...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>
> Jesus did not open the minds of his followers to be filled with the
> sewage of the Old Testament. Jesus warned his followers not to follow
> the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the preachers of that very dogma
> found in the Old Testament.
Matt. 5:17..."Do not think that I have come to abolish Torah or the
Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them... Anyone who
breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the
same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven...."
Jesus would fulfill what he regards as sewage?
> Jesus rejected the Old Testament
> mythology.
Luke 4:17.... "The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to [Jesus].
Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 'The Spirit of the
Lord is on me, because he has annointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight
for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's
favor.' Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat
down.... he began by saying to them, 'Today this scripture is fulfilled in
your hearing.'"
Jesus would reject that which explains him?
> Even if the Old Testament can be considered "allegorical," the
> lessons to be learned from such examples are the antitheses of
> everything Jesus taught, everything Jesus stood for, everything Jesus
> died for.
Without the old testament, Jesus' death would be a meaningless, silly thing.
Silly for a king to be born in Bethlehem
Silly for a man to be "pierced for our transgressions"
Silly for a savior to fulfill and quote endless passages
of prophets and prophecies that never existed, that were myths....
> The Old Testament is the albatross around the neck of Christianity.
> Like that ancient mariner, let us all to pray to God that the
> Christian Churches of the world will break the cord holding that
> putrid and smelly corpse and let it fall into the sea of eternity,
> never to harm Christians again.
"Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens." (quoted
from that "albatross")
Aaron Hopper
. But they have
> found nothing to support the existence of any great kingdom of Israel.
> No records of any significant Jewish country or any viable Jewish
> civilization can be found.
>
The great thing about such a sweeping statement as "they have found
nothing", is that I only have to show 1 thing they have found to falsify
that statement. Saves me time. So here it is.... if you care to check any
secular source, you will find that Merneptah was the Egyptian king who
succeeded Ramses II. During his reign, he recorded on a stele that 'Israel
is laid waste and his seed is not'. The stele was dated c. 1207 BC. This
is one of the oldest secular references to Israel. Not much evidence, to be
sure, but much more than "no record of any significant Jewish country or any
viable Jewish civilization". There is evidence of the historical accuracy
of the Old Testament, and sweeping generalizations to the contrary don't
hold up.
There is, however, less evidence that directly contradicts the biblical
record. And some evidence that was previously thought to contradict
biblical accounts has been laid to rest by more recent discoveries. For
example, in Luke 3:1, he says "In the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius.... Lysanias [was] tetrarch of Abilene". For a time, Luke's
accuracy was questioned because the only record of a Lysanias, was one who
ruled in Chalcis in 40 BC, before Tiberius' time and in another location.
Later, however, an inscription dating to the time of Tiberius was found
which names "Lysanias of Abila", consistent with Luke's account.
Leonard Pardin
> "Leonard Pardin" <leop...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> news:d746a243.04090...@posting.google.com...
> . But they have
> > found nothing to support the existence of any great kingdom of Israel.
> > No records of any significant Jewish country or any viable Jewish
> > civilization can be found.
> >
>
> The great thing about such a sweeping statement as "they have found
> nothing", is that I only have to show 1 thing they have found to falsify
> that statement. Saves me time. So here it is.... if you care to check any
> secular source, you will find that Merneptah was the Egyptian king who
> succeeded Ramses II. During his reign, he recorded on a stele that 'Israel
> is laid waste and his seed is not'. The stele was dated c. 1207 BC. This
> is one of the oldest secular references to Israel. Not much evidence, to be
> sure, but much more than "no record of any significant Jewish country or any
> viable Jewish civilization". There is evidence of the historical accuracy
> of the Old Testament, and sweeping generalizations to the contrary don't
> hold up.
There is no evidence of Biblical Israel. According to the one
dubious sentence you cite, whatever insignificant Israel there was
had disappeared in 1207 BC,
>
> There is, however, less evidence that directly contradicts the biblical
> record. And some evidence that was previously thought to contradict
> biblical accounts has been laid to rest by more recent discoveries. For
> example, in Luke 3:1, he says "In the fifteenth year of the reign of
> Tiberius.... Lysanias [was] tetrarch of Abilene". For a time, Luke's
> accuracy was questioned because the only record of a Lysanias, was one who
> ruled in Chalcis in 40 BC, before Tiberius' time and in another location.
> Later, however, an inscription dating to the time of Tiberius was found
> which names "Lysanias of Abila", consistent with Luke's account.
Don't try to prove the validity of the Old Testament by referring
to passages from the New Testament. The two are not the same, don't
belong together, are not related in any way. That's my point.
Leonard Pardin
> Leonard Pardin <leop...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>
> > Look at the gory tales shown by the excerpts quoted by another
> > poster in this thread--they are hardly "allegorical." The Old
>
> Where are you coming from?
>
> Galatians 4:24, Hebrews 11:19 and Revelation 11:18 all indicate that
> certain writings in the Scriptures are allegorical.
>
> That's some really "objective" research into Christianity that you're
> doing Mr. Pardin.
>
> M. Clark
>
the Old Testament. The problem is that many Christians think it is
history, they think it is true, they think it is the immutable word of
God, and fundamentalists think it is to be followed to the letter.
That misconception has been disastrous for Christianity.
Today we have Christians insisting the universe was created in
seven days--because the Old Testament say so. Today we have
Christians supporting murder in Palestine so Jews can live on the land
between the Nile and Euphrates given to them by Yahweh--because the
Old Testament says so.
Christian confusion is all around. Christians today oppose Islam,
even though Muslims accept the virgin birth, a sinless Jesus through
whom God himself spolke, the crucifixion, and the ascension. Yet the
same Christians embrace the Jews, Jews who deny the divinity of Jesus,
deny the virgin birth, deny the ascensiion, and insist that Jesus was
justifiably put to death for heresy. Christians embrace the Jews
because the Old Testament tells them that Jews are God's chosen.
The theme, content, and message of the Old Testament is the
complete opposite of everything Jesus taught. Christians would be far
better off if they recognized that Jesus was not Jewish, and the Old
Testament of the religion of the Jews and not the religion of Jesus.
Leonard Pardin
> "Leonard Pardin" <leop...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> news:d746a243.04090...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Jesus did not open the minds of his followers to be filled with the
> > sewage of the Old Testament. Jesus warned his followers not to follow
> > the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the preachers of that very dogma
> > found in the Old Testament.
>
> Matt. 5:17..."Do not think that I have come to abolish Torah or the
> Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them... Anyone who
> breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the
> same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven...."
>
> Jesus would fulfill what he regards as sewage?
I've seen a number of variations of that passage, but none of them
used the term "Torah." The greek word used by Matthew signified only
the "law," not the Torah. Jesus is quoted as saying he did not come
to abolish the law.
But then refer to Jesus's answer to the wealthy man who asked what
commandments he must follow to be saved. Jesus gave only six.
Obviously Jesus was not saying he came to preserve the law of the Old
Testament.
Also remember that Jesus rejected Mosaic law on stoning sinners,
on divorce, on keeping the Sabbath, on eye for eye justice. Jesus was
not preserving the law of the Torah. He was fulfilling the law of the
God the father, not Yahweh the demon.
mclark
Again, Jesus did not reject Mosaic law per se but the tangents to the
law that the Pharisees had led the people on with respect the Pharisee's
misunderstanding of the law. This is evidenced in Mark 7:9-13.
All you have to do to know these things is to read the Bible under the
guidance of Jesus' Holy Spirit. But you seem to be basing your
"understanding" of the Bible on what you hear about it from others who
don't follow Jesus. As I said elsewhere, so much for your "objective"
research into Christianity.
M. Clark
mclark
> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) wrote in message
> news:<1gjlakx.1k8wez31pfgh32N%idont...@toemail.com>... > Leonard Pardin
> <leop...@MailAndNews.com> wrote: > > > Look at the gory tales shown
> by the excerpts quoted by another > > poster in this thread--they are
> hardly "allegorical." The Old
> >
> > Where are you coming from?
> >
> > Galatians 4:24, Hebrews 11:19 and Revelation 11:18 all indicate that
> > certain writings in the Scriptures are allegorical.
> >
> > That's some really "objective" research into Christianity that you're
> > doing Mr. Pardin.
> >
> > M. Clark
> >
> An allegory is a fictional tale, in other words, a myth. That's
> the Old Testament. The problem is that many Christians think it is
> history, they think it is true, they think it is the immutable word of
> God, and fundamentalists think it is to be followed to the letter.
> That misconception has been disastrous for Christianity.
Your definition of allegory is oversimplified. An allegory is a
fictional tale having "hidden" meaning.
al·le·go·ry
1. a. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by
characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial
form.
Consider, for example, that the OT prophets foretold the first coming of
Christ in allegorical form. However, the "hidden" meaning of the
allegorical prophecies went right over the heads of the Pharisees of
Jesus' time and they failed to recognize Jesus.
Yes, certain Christians take the Bible's allegorical writings literally.
I used to do this too. But also note that certain atheists insist that
the Bible's allegorical writings be taken literally. They do this to
make Christians look ignorant. And I won't deny that certain so-called
Christians are ignorant.
>
> Today we have Christians insisting the universe was created in
> seven days--because the Old Testament say so. Today we have
> Christians supporting murder in Palestine so Jews can live on the land
> between the Nile and Euphrates given to them by Yahweh--because the
> Old Testament says so.
First of all, how do you know when someone is a Christian? Because they
say they are?
Regarding creation, please show me where the OT says that the universe
was created in seven solar days. With respect to the so-called 24 hour
days of the 7 days of creation, note that the sun and the moon were not
created until day 4. So the 24 hour aspect of the 7 days of creation is
very presumptuous. In fact, "discrepancies" like the 4th day of
creation suggest allegorical meaning.
>
> Christian confusion is all around. Christians today oppose Islam,
> even though Muslims accept the virgin birth, a sinless Jesus through
> whom God himself spolke, the crucifixion, and the ascension. Yet the
> same Christians embrace the Jews, Jews who deny the divinity of Jesus,
> deny the virgin birth, deny the ascensiion, and insist that Jesus was
> justifiably put to death for heresy. Christians embrace the Jews
> because the Old Testament tells them that Jews are God's chosen.
Please volunteer your definition of a Christian.
>
> The theme, content, and message of the Old Testament is the
> complete opposite of everything Jesus taught. Christians would be far
> better off if they recognized that Jesus was not Jewish, and the Old
> Testament of the religion of the Jews and not the religion of Jesus.
Consider that Jesus understood the "hidden" meanings of the OT's
allegorical writings while the Pharisees and some modern Christians do
not. This is evidenced by Mark 7:9-13.
Regarding the Bible's allegorical writings, consider that Luke 24:44-45
shows that Jesus had to open the minds of his own apostles to the
Scriptures. John 16:12-15 indicates that Jesus' Holy Spirit will now
open our minds to the Scriptures - that is, if we allow the Spirit to do
so. But if you resist the Spirit's guidance, as you probably do, then
consider that you are no better of that 1 Corinthians 1:18-19.
M. Clark
Pastor Frank
> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) wrote in message
news:<1gjlakx.1k8wez31pfgh32N%idont...@toemail.com>...
> > Leonard Pardin <leop...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Look at the gory tales shown by the excerpts quoted by another
> > > poster in this thread--they are hardly "allegorical." The Old
> >
> > Where are you coming from?
> >
> > Galatians 4:24, Hebrews 11:19 and Revelation 11:18 all indicate that
> > certain writings in the Scriptures are allegorical.
> >
> > That's some really "objective" research into Christianity that you're
> > doing Mr. Pardin.
>>
> the Old Testament. The problem is that many Christians think it is
> history, they think it is true, they think it is the immutable word of
> God, and fundamentalists think it is to be followed to the letter.
> That misconception has been disastrous for Christianity.
>
in all stripes as they are not obliged to adhere to the Biblical
interpretation of a denomination's favourite Theologian. That is why
Fundamentalist literature ONLY quotes the Bible as their authoritative
source, never any other authority.
I am not however a literalist fundamentalist Christian. Literalists are
the the loudest and most strident Fundamentalist Christians, and though a
pain in the hassock, they are nevertheless essential to keep the train on
the rails so to speak. Without them we would likely end up with massive
diversions and wild and woolly interpretations far removed from the original
text. Don't we all wish the Catholic church would have been more literalist
and stick closer to scripture, so we wouldn't have Mary feted as a
co-redemptress.
I find far too many Christians are at pain to be both Jew and Christian,
believing in both the OT AND the NT. That is impossible, because as you
pointed out, they contradict. Christ dubbed the OT the old wine in the old
wine-skins and His teaching the new wine in the new wine skins. They are not
to be mixed or combined. We have to make a choice.
Pastor Frank
THE COMMANDMENTS THE LORD GAVE MOSES ON MT. SINAI TO THE ISREALITES.
Leviticus 20:9-27 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to
death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his
own head.
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife
of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his
father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads.
If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be
put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be
on their own heads.
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them
have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads.
If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both
he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be
among you.
If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to
death, and you must kill the animal.
If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it,
kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their
blood will be on their own heads.
If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or
his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be
cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and
will be held responsible.
If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has
sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and
she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.
Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your
mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of
you would be held responsible.
If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They
will be held responsible; they will die childless.
If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he
has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land
where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.
You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going
to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.
But I said to you, "You will possess their land; I will give it to
you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD
your God, who has set you apart from the nations.
You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean
animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by
any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground-those which I
have set apart as unclean for you.
You are to be holy to me [3] because I, the LORD , am holy, and I
have set you apart from the nations to be my own.
Leonard Pardin
> Leonard Pardin <leop...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> >
> > But then refer to Jesus's answer to the wealthy man who asked what
> > commandments he must follow to be saved. Jesus gave only six.
> > Obviously Jesus was not saying he came to preserve the law of the Old
> > Testament.
> >
> > Also remember that Jesus rejected Mosaic law on stoning sinners,
> > on divorce, on keeping the Sabbath, on eye for eye justice. Jesus was
> > not preserving the law of the Torah. He was fulfilling the law of the
> > God the father, not Yahweh the demon.
>
> Again, Jesus did not reject Mosaic law per se but the tangents to the
> law that the Pharisees had led the people on with respect the Pharisee's
> misunderstanding of the law. This is evidenced in Mark 7:9-13.
>
In that same chapter of Mark, Jesus swept away the dietary laws
supposedly handed down by Yahweh and recorded by Moses himself in the
Old Testament. In Leviticus we see all sorts of prohibitions against
eating certain foods. But according to the New Testament, Jesus
said,"Can't you see that what you eat won't defile you?" As he did so
often throughout the Gospels, Jesus rejected Mosaic law. Jesus was
not a Jew.
> All you have to do to know these things is to read the Bible under the
> guidance of Jesus' Holy Spirit. But you seem to be basing your
> "understanding" of the Bible on what you hear about it from others who
> don't follow Jesus. As I said elsewhere, so much for your "objective"
> research into Christianity.
>
> M. Clark
Apparently, when your Holy Spirit guides you through the Gospels,
he conveniently skips over everything said by Jesus that contradicts
the Old Testament. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave very much. The
underlying theme of the gospels is the conflict between Jesus and the
ruling Jews of Judea. Jesus defied them, cursed them, contradicted
their teachings and their rituals, and warned his followers against
them. The result: the Jews arranged to have Jesus killed. That's the
summary of the Gospels. Jesus rejected the Jews and the Jewish
teachings--the Old Testament--and Christians who follow the teachings
of Jesus should do the same.
K-town
"...when I go to Heaven, I'll ask God when I see Him. If you happen to be
I'll just leave it at that.
Jonathan
K-town
> Again, Jesus did not reject Mosaic law per se but the tangents to the
> law that the Pharisees had led the people on with respect the Pharisee's
> misunderstanding of the law. This is evidenced in Mark 7:9-13.
> All you have to do to know these things is to read the Bible under the
> guidance of Jesus' Holy Spirit. But you seem to be basing your
> "understanding" of the Bible on what you hear about it from others who
> don't follow Jesus. As I said elsewhere, so much for your "objective"
> research into Christianity.
>
> M. Clark
Hallieujah & Amen, brother! :-) Trying to study and understand the Bible
"logically" is almost completely impossible. It only with God-given wisdom
that one can truly understand His Word. Some parts of the Bible are to be
taken literally, some are not. (i.e. Lots of scriptures are parables or
illustrations, not actual events) But with discernment and interpretation
through Jesus, one can know the difference. Nevertheless, Jesus is the key.
(Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life)
Jonathan
P.S. To see an example of "Jesus and His methods in action," read John
chapter 8.
mclark
> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) wrote in message
> news:<1gjnfso.10oojd1zf4mkgN%idont...@toemail.com>... > Leonard Pardin
> <leop...@MailAndNews.com> wrote: > > > > But then refer to Jesus's
> answer to the wealthy man who asked what > > commandments he must follow
> to be saved. Jesus gave only six. > > Obviously Jesus was not saying he
> came to preserve the law of the Old > > Testament.
> > >
> > > Also remember that Jesus rejected Mosaic law on stoning sinners,
> > > on divorce, on keeping the Sabbath, on eye for eye justice. Jesus was
> > > not preserving the law of the Torah. He was fulfilling the law of the
> > > God the father, not Yahweh the demon.
> >
> > Again, Jesus did not reject Mosaic law per se but the tangents to the
> > law that the Pharisees had led the people on with respect the Pharisee's
> > misunderstanding of the law. This is evidenced in Mark 7:9-13.
> >
>
> In that same chapter of Mark, Jesus swept away the dietary laws
> supposedly handed down by Yahweh and recorded by Moses himself in the
> Old Testament. In Leviticus we see all sorts of prohibitions against
> eating certain foods. But according to the New Testament, Jesus
> said,"Can't you see that what you eat won't defile you?" As he did so
> often throughout the Gospels, Jesus rejected Mosaic law. Jesus was
> not a Jew.
The bottom line is that you have to spin what the Bible really says in
order for your assertion about Jesus rejecting Mosaic law to hold water.
But you overlook that God said in the OT that he was going to establish
a new covenant anyway (Jeremiah 31:31). And it was Jesus' job to
establish the new covenant (Hebrews 9:15). But Jesus worked within the
Law until it was time for him to make changes (Matthew 5:17).
>
>
> > All you have to do to know these things is to read the Bible under the
> > guidance of Jesus' Holy Spirit. But you seem to be basing your
> > "understanding" of the Bible on what you hear about it from others who
> > don't follow Jesus. As I said elsewhere, so much for your "objective"
> > research into Christianity.
> >
> > M. Clark
>
> Apparently, when your Holy Spirit guides you through the Gospels,
> he conveniently skips over everything said by Jesus that contradicts
> the Old Testament. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave very much. The
> underlying theme of the gospels is the conflict between Jesus and the
> ruling Jews of Judea. Jesus defied them, cursed them, contradicted
> their teachings and their rituals, and warned his followers against
> them. The result: the Jews arranged to have Jesus killed. That's the
> summary of the Gospels. Jesus rejected the Jews and the Jewish
> teachings--the Old Testament--and Christians who follow the teachings
> of Jesus should do the same.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, Luke 24:44-45 shows that Jesus had to open
the minds of his own apostles to the Scriptures. Indeed, regardless
that his apostles had studied from the same scroll version of the
Scriptures that Jesus did, even they had failed to understand that
events concerning Jesus that they had been eyewitnesses to were actually
fulfilling prophecies concerning the Messiah. John 16:12-15 shows that
Jesus' Holy Spirit will now open our minds to the Scripture. That is,
if we invite the Spirit to do so. But you are evidendly rejecting the
guidance of the Spirit with respect to your understanding of the
Scriptures. You are consequently no better off understanding the
Scriptures than 1 Corinthians 1:18-19 or 2 Peter 3:16.
Return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have eternal
life.
M. Clark
Rafeek
wrote:
><snip>
That's probably a good idea. Wouldn't want thought to get in the way
of your faith :)
Pastor Frank
news:d746a243.04090...@posting.google.com...
> he conveniently skips over everything said by Jesus that contradicts
> the Old Testament. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave very much. The
> underlying theme of the gospels is the conflict between Jesus and the
> ruling Jews of Judea. Jesus defied them, cursed them, contradicted
> their teachings and their rituals, and warned his followers against
> them. The result: the Jews arranged to have Jesus killed. That's the
> summary of the Gospels. Jesus rejected the Jews and the Jewish
> teachings--the Old Testament--and Christians who follow the teachings
> of Jesus should do the same.
>
Unfortunately there are far too many Christians who aim to be both Jew and
Christian, even justifying the obscene atrocity below, which is in the
process of bringing the Apocalypse down on all of us.
Pastor Frank
CAUSE OF THE APOCALYPSE: Being proud instead of repentant of the
horrific holocaust of the entire native population of "the promised land",
as well as the continuing colonial brutality against Palestinian natives.
The below atrocities were committed shortly after the God of the Jews,
YHWH, gave them the 10 commandments, forbidding Jews to covet their
neighbour's property and kill them to get a hold of it.
Then we are told, YHWH who is supposed to be "the same yesterday,
today and tomorrow", changed His mind and commanded them to "kill all
that breatheth", to "occupy the land" and "reap where they have not sown",
resulting in the below holocaust.
--------
Deuteronomy 20:16-17 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord
thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing
that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them; the Hittites, and the
Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites
as the Lord thy God has commanded thee."
Ezekiel 32:5 "I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the
valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with
your flowing blood..."
Ezekiel 9:5 "Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall
not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and
maidens, little children and women...'"
Deut. 7:1 (KJV)When Yahweh your god has settled you in the land you're
about to occupy, and driven out many infidels before you...you're to cut
them down and exterminate them. You're to make no compromise with
them nor show them any mercy.
Joshua 10:40 - BBE So Joshua struck all the land, the hill-country, and
the South, and the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings: he left
none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as God, the God
of Israel, commanded."
1 Samuel 15:3 - BBE Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all
that they have, and don't spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant
and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
Isaiah 13:16 - BBE Their infants also will be dashed in pieces before
their eyes. Their houses will be ransacked, and their wives raped."
Hosea 13:16 - BBE Samaria will bear her guilt; For she has rebelled
against her God. They will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed
in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open."
Moses in Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the
little ones, and kill every woman, that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the female children, that have not known man by lying with him,
keep alive for yourself.
PROPHETIC APOCALYPSE, (The N-U-C-L-E-A-R consequence of the abomination
above and others like it, employing great noise and heat that can melt
elements, scorch people and destroy the "works of man" on a massive scale)
2Pt:3:10: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in
the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein
shall be burned up.
2Pt:3:12: Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God,
wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall
melt with fervent heat?
Jesus in Matt. 24:16: Then let them which be in Judea flee into the
mountains:
17: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out
of his house:
18: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his
clothes.
19: And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in
those days!
20: But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the
sabbath day:
21: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the
beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22: And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be
saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Jesus in Lk:23:30: Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall
on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
Rv:16:9: And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name
of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give
him glory.
K-town
>>child, with a soul," but let's look at this logically & Biblically at the
>>same time: God is the author of human life. It is He that gave each
>>human
>>a soul. Now, this part is scientific & medical fact: When the male sperm
>>cell enters the female egg cell and is fertilized, the cell now has 46
>>chromosomes, just like every cell in the human body. Provided the
>>mother's
>>uterus is a hospitable environment, the egg cell will divide into 16 cells
>>before moving into the uterus and begin the process of developing into a
>>human baby. If the first cell was not alive, it could not divide, and
>>therefore not develop into anything. (Every science book I read in school
>>said that the "chain" of living things begins at single-celled organisms.
>>i.e. An amoeba is a single-celled organism. Is it a living thing? Of
>>course!) Menstruation is what occurs when an egg cell is not fertilized.
>>It
>>moves to the uterus as a dead, unfertilized cell, and is "flushed" out of
>>her uterus. Now, assuming the fertilized egg makes it to the uterus, it
>>WILL develop into a living, breathing, human baby.
>Assuming XYZ conditions (becoming fertilized, etc.), an ovum will
>develop into a living, breathing, human baby also. Isn't it kind of
>arbitrary to wait until fertilization to claim it has a 'soul'?
Not really...the sperm cell in itself cannot develop into a baby, and an
unfertilized egg cell cannot develop into a baby.
>>Going back to the
>>Biblical part, since God gave each human a soul, and He knows that this
>>"egg-cell" WILL eventually develop into a baby,
>...if xyz conditions are met...
With God's Hand, those "xyz" conditions will be met. If it is God's will,
it will happen.
>>why should he wait until it
>>is in the third trimester, or until birth before giving it a soul?
>Why wait until fertilization? Maybe all eggs and sperm have souls
>too...?
Now that is just silly. (I actually laughed at that one) Like what I said
earlier: "...the sperm cell in itself cannot develop into a baby, and an
unfertilized egg cell cannot develop into a baby." Based on your logic, the
fertilized egg would have two souls. It is clearly stated in the Bible that
each human is _A_ (i.e. ONE) living soul. So that hypothesis can be
discarded.
>> (Read
>>Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 49:1, and most importantly, Jeremiah
>>1:5 - they're all cited in that link) Do I know for an absolute 100% fact
>>that God gives that single, 46-chromosome cell a soul?
>Well... since you're religious, we probably shouldn't 'go there' about
>what you know for a fact or not... i.e. that any supernatural event
>(even one!) or being has ever occurred or existed.
If you are atheist, or whatever you are that causes you to question one (or
more) of God's miraculous works as such, what are you doing in a newsgroup
called "God-talk"?
>>I can't say that God
>>specifically told me that. But, as I said before, why would he wait until
>>later? He knows it is going to develop into a human baby. Who is to say
>>that a soul cannot fit inside of a single cell? I'll tell you what,
>>though:
>>Regarding the exact time when the baby-to-be receives his/her soul, when I
>>go to Heaven, I'll ask God when I see Him. If you happen to be there, you
>>can ask Him too. ;-)
<next message>
I don't have to. The Bible, and common sense, tells us that no human being
can fully understand and comprehend God's mind, thought-processes, miracles,
etc. It is impossible to do so. I know and believe what matters: God is
the Creator of life, and He said that it is wrong to destroy it. He DID NOT
say, "Well, it's OK to prevent the development of human life, but just don't
kill anyone that is walking around on this earth right now." So therefore,
simple logic tells me: Since I am a born-again believer in Jesus Christ, it
is my desire to obey His laws, and not condone anything that is, in any way,
a contradiction or defiance of His laws and teachings.
However, since you seem hell-bent on not believing me, (which we all have
the right to believe or not believe what we wish) and you try and question
every point of the Life-Begins-At-Conception belief, then I issue you the
same challange you issued me, only the opposite: I'd like to see you find
some factual, 100% official, medically & scientifically-documented material
that proves everything that I have said to be wrong. (I know you can't use
the Bible, because it would just prove me right. Jeremiah 1:5 does that all
by itself) Even if you succeed in doing so, I can promise you I won't
believe it, just as you choose not to believe me, but I don't believe you'll
be able to prove me wrong to the extent of "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt".
i.e. It would have to be something from a source like the American Medical
Association, or WebMD, or something of that caliber. Just some "Dr. Joe
Schmo's" written essay will not suffice. "Your mission, should you choose
to accept it..." ;-)
Jonathan
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am." - Jesus Christ,
John 8:58
Rafeek
wrote:
>>>I doubt you'll find that exact phrase, "from the first live cell, it is a
>>>child, with a soul," but let's look at this logically & Biblically at the
>>>same time: God is the author of human life. It is He that gave each
>>>human
>>>a soul. Now, this part is scientific & medical fact: When the male sperm
>>>cell enters the female egg cell and is fertilized, the cell now has 46
>>>chromosomes, just like every cell in the human body. Provided the
>>>mother's
>>>uterus is a hospitable environment, the egg cell will divide into 16 cells
>>>before moving into the uterus and begin the process of developing into a
>>>human baby. If the first cell was not alive, it could not divide, and
>>>therefore not develop into anything. (Every science book I read in school
>>>said that the "chain" of living things begins at single-celled organisms.
>>>i.e. An amoeba is a single-celled organism. Is it a living thing? Of
>>>course!) Menstruation is what occurs when an egg cell is not fertilized.
>>>It
>>>moves to the uterus as a dead, unfertilized cell, and is "flushed" out of
>>>her uterus. Now, assuming the fertilized egg makes it to the uterus, it
>>>WILL develop into a living, breathing, human baby.
>
>>Assuming XYZ conditions (becoming fertilized, etc.), an ovum will
>>develop into a living, breathing, human baby also. Isn't it kind of
>>arbitrary to wait until fertilization to claim it has a 'soul'?
>
>Not really...the sperm cell in itself cannot develop into a baby, and an
>unfertilized egg cell cannot develop into a baby.
By itself, a fertilized egg cannot develop into a baby either. It is
dependent upon certain conditions being met.
>>>Going back to the
>>>Biblical part, since God gave each human a soul, and He knows that this
>>>"egg-cell" WILL eventually develop into a baby,
>
>>...if xyz conditions are met...
>
>With God's Hand, those "xyz" conditions will be met. If it is God's will,
>it will happen.
Kind of like it was "god's will" for this to happen?
>>>why should he wait until it
>>>is in the third trimester, or until birth before giving it a soul?
>
>>Why wait until fertilization? Maybe all eggs and sperm have souls
>>too...?
>
>Now that is just silly.
Perhaps... perhaps it's also silly to think that there's an invisible
man out there who magically conducts the earth and passes out
magically invisible 'souls' to each fertilized egg.
>(I actually laughed at that one) Like what I said
>earlier: "...the sperm cell in itself cannot develop into a baby, and an
>unfertilized egg cell cannot develop into a baby." Based on your logic, the
>fertilized egg would have two souls. It is clearly stated in the Bible that
>each human is _A_ (i.e. ONE) living soul. So that hypothesis can be
>discarded.
>
>>> (Read
>>>Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 49:1, and most importantly, Jeremiah
>>>1:5 - they're all cited in that link) Do I know for an absolute 100% fact
>>>that God gives that single, 46-chromosome cell a soul?
>
>>Well... since you're religious, we probably shouldn't 'go there' about
>>what you know for a fact or not... i.e. that any supernatural event
>>(even one!) or being has ever occurred or existed.
>
>If you are atheist, or whatever you are that causes you to question one (or
>more) of God's miraculous works as such, what are you doing in a newsgroup
>called "God-talk"?
I'm actually posting from alt.religion.christianity... someone decided
to crosspost this thread to about six groups. Either way, I'm
interested in talking with believers to hear how they rationalize
their faith... it fascinates me.
>>>I can't say that God
>>>specifically told me that. But, as I said before, why would he wait until
>>>later? He knows it is going to develop into a human baby. Who is to say
>>>that a soul cannot fit inside of a single cell? I'll tell you what,
>>>though:
>>>Regarding the exact time when the baby-to-be receives his/her soul, when I
>>>go to Heaven, I'll ask God when I see Him. If you happen to be there, you
>>>can ask Him too. ;-)
>
><next message>
>
>On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 14:18:27 GMT, "K-town" <jdu5...@carolina.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>><snip>
>>>"...when I go to Heaven, I'll ask God when I see Him. If you happen to be
>>>there, you can ask Him too. ;-)"
>>><end>
>>>
>>>I'll just leave it at that.
>>>
>>>Jonathan
>
>>That's probably a good idea. Wouldn't want thought to get in the way
>>of your faith :)
>
>I don't have to. The Bible, and common sense, tells us that no human being
>can fully understand and comprehend God's mind, thought-processes, miracles,
>etc. It is impossible to do so.
That's becoming more and more apparent to me :) I happen to have a
different idea as to why it's impossible to understand your god,
though.
>I know and believe what matters: God is
>the Creator of life, and He said that it is wrong to destroy it.
You must be vegan, then.
>He DID NOT
>say, "Well, it's OK to prevent the development of human life, but just don't
>kill anyone that is walking around on this earth right now." So therefore,
>simple logic tells me: Since I am a born-again believer in Jesus Christ, it
>is my desire to obey His laws, and not condone anything that is, in any way,
>a contradiction or defiance of His laws and teachings.
>
>However, since you seem hell-bent on not believing me, (which we all have
>the right to believe or not believe what we wish) and you try and question
>every point of the Life-Begins-At-Conception belief, then I issue you the
>same challange you issued me, only the opposite: I'd like to see you find
>some factual, 100% official, medically & scientifically-documented material
>that proves everything that I have said to be wrong.
I haven't made the claim that everything you have said is wrong. For
all I know, you could be right. I'm simply asking you some questions.
(BTW, I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find evidence of ANY
kind regarding that which you describe as a 'soul', which, if I'm not
mistaken, is supposedly supernatural and immaterial)
>(I know you can't use
>the Bible, because it would just prove me right. Jeremiah 1:5 does that all
>by itself) Even if you succeed in doing so, I can promise you I won't
>believe it,
That's why it's so much fun talking to you religious people... no
matter what the topic, that same attitude prevails (evidence be
damned... I have FAITH!!)
>just as you choose not to believe me, but I don't believe you'll
>be able to prove me wrong to the extent of "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt".
>i.e. It would have to be something from a source like the American Medical
>Association, or WebMD, or something of that caliber. Just some "Dr. Joe
>Schmo's" written essay will not suffice. "Your mission, should you choose
>to accept it..." ;-)
Thanks for your attempt to shift the burden of proof... but I am not
the one making assertions here, you are. Interesting how you would
hold up someone else to a much higher standard than you set for
yourself, though. Your claims have been backed up by little more than
a few bible verses which you attempted to manipulate to support your
position. :)
K-town
Well, we have both spoken our piece, and neither of us have accomplished
anything. (I know I can't "force" you to change your mind any more than you
can "force" me to change mine, regardless of what is said) We could drag
this on forever, I'm sure, but I'm sure there are others out there that you
can talk to who are much more "fascinating" than myself. ;-) I believe the
Bible to be the Word of God, and therefore, I believe in God. As for all
the bad things that happen in the world, God doesn't act as a "barrier" to
prevent bad things from happening. As long as Satan is in this world, bad
things will continue to happen. (Read the book of Job for a prime example)
My hope is that someday you may see the Light before it is too late. I pray
that you do.
Jonathan
P.S. Since there is no 100% proof of whether or not Christianity is
"correct" or not, I look at it this way: If there really is no god, and
death is the end of the line, then whatever I believed during my life will
be of no consequence. However, on the other hand...what if it IS all true?
I'm sure you've probably heard the phrase: "It's better to have it and not
need it than to need it and not have it." I would recommend that you talk
to a good Christian pastor about all of these "questions" you have. He
could probably help you out in understanding God and the Christian faith.
:-)
Leonard Pardin
> Leonard Pardin <leop...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>
> > > Again, Jesus did not reject Mosaic law per se but the tangents to the
> > > law that the Pharisees had led the people on with respect the Pharisee's
> > > misunderstanding of the law. This is evidenced in Mark 7:9-13.
> > >
> >
> > In that same chapter of Mark, Jesus swept away the dietary laws
> > supposedly handed down by Yahweh and recorded by Moses himself in the
> > Old Testament. In Leviticus we see all sorts of prohibitions against
> > eating certain foods. But according to the New Testament, Jesus
> > said,"Can't you see that what you eat won't defile you?" As he did so
> > often throughout the Gospels, Jesus rejected Mosaic law. Jesus was
> > not a Jew.
>
> The bottom line is that you have to spin what the Bible really says in
> order for your assertion about Jesus rejecting Mosaic law to hold water.
> But you overlook that God said in the OT that he was going to establish
> a new covenant anyway (Jeremiah 31:31).
Here's what Jeremiah 31:33 claims:
"33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and
they shall be my people."
Apparently, that dubious god got it all wrong: The New testament
was not put in the "inward parts" of the Jews, and the God of Jesus is
not the God of the Jews and the Jews are not the people of the God of
Jesus. So we can discard anything in Jeremiah as valid.
And it was Jesus' job to
> establish the new covenant (Hebrews 9:15).
In Hebrews, The Pharisee Paul compares the martyrdom of Jesus with
the blood sacrifice of bulls and goats routinely performed by the
Israelite priests in the temple of Yahweh.
"Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an
heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the
flesh:
"Hbr 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the
eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
So the demon Yahweh loved killing bulls and goats to honor him,
and Paul felt Yahweh must have enjoyed the suffering and death of a
pure human being even more. It is dishonorable and disgusting to
compare the passion of Jesus with the slaughter of bulls and goats.
But Jesus worked within the
> Law until it was time for him to make changes (Matthew 5:17).
During his brief visit on earth, Jesus almost daily refuted the
Jewish Mosaic law and traditions. Jesus deplored the idea that his
followers would follow the teachings of the Pharisees. Jesus clearly
rejected the Jewish traditions and condemned the Jews for refusing to
give up those barbaric traditions. Jesus said in Mark 7-9: "Full well
ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own
tradition."
And today Christians still hold on to those profane traditions of
Judaism. They still believe and follow the Old Testament. Christians
still believe in a Jewish God who condones mass slaughter of
indigenous people to allow the "chosen" to take their land.
Christians still support murder in the Middle East rather than give up
the traditions of the Old Testament. Christians today who cling to the
Old Testament have strayed from the teachings of Jesus.
Rafeek
wrote:
>Rafeek,
>
>Well, we have both spoken our piece, and neither of us have accomplished
>anything. (I know I can't "force" you to change your mind any more than you
>can "force" me to change mine, regardless of what is said) We could drag
>this on forever, I'm sure, but I'm sure there are others out there that you
>can talk to who are much more "fascinating" than myself. ;-) I believe the
>Bible to be the Word of God, and therefore, I believe in God.
I guess that's the difference between you and me... I tend not to
place much credence in claims that have no evidence to back them up.
That's why I'm so mystified at how christians believe what they do.
>As for all
>the bad things that happen in the world, God doesn't act as a "barrier" to
>prevent bad things from happening. As long as Satan is in this world, bad
>things will continue to happen. (Read the book of Job for a prime example)
God created satan, did he not? Therefore god is responsible for pain
and suffering. I don't see how you can get around that.
>My hope is that someday you may see the Light before it is too late. I pray
>that you do.
>
>Jonathan
>
>P.S. Since there is no 100% proof of whether or not Christianity is
>"correct" or not, I look at it this way: If there really is no god, and
>death is the end of the line, then whatever I believed during my life will
>be of no consequence. However, on the other hand...what if it IS all true?
>I'm sure you've probably heard the phrase: "It's better to have it and not
>need it than to need it and not have it."
Sure. I've actually tried your religion on for size... it just didn't
work. No matter what I did, I could never bring myself to believe it.
Believe me, I don't think that being religious in and of itself is
harmful... I actually think that a lot of people NEED to believe in
the unseen for whatever reason. I'm just not one of them.
>I would recommend that you talk
>to a good Christian pastor about all of these "questions" you have. He
>could probably help you out in understanding God and the Christian faith.
>:-)
>
I was raised in the christian faith, and I think I have an adequate
understanding of it.
mclark
Where are you coming from?
Regarding God's covenants with man, the law was in the people's hearts
in OT times (Deuteronomy 30:10-14, especially verse 14). The law is in
the people's hearts in NT times (Romans 2:14-15).
>
>
> And it was Jesus' job to
> > establish the new covenant (Hebrews 9:15).
>
> In Hebrews, The Pharisee Paul compares the martyrdom of Jesus with
> the blood sacrifice of bulls and goats routinely performed by the
> Israelite priests in the temple of Yahweh.
>
> "Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an
> heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the
> flesh:
>
> "Hbr 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the
> eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your
> conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
>
> So the demon Yahweh loved killing bulls and goats to honor him,
> and Paul felt Yahweh must have enjoyed the suffering and death of a
> pure human being even more. It is dishonorable and disgusting to
> compare the passion of Jesus with the slaughter of bulls and goats.
You're scriptural "insight" is unscriptural. Hebrews 10:5-6 shows that
God was not pleased with animal sacrifices.
>
>
> But Jesus worked within the
> > Law until it was time for him to make changes (Matthew 5:17).
>
> During his brief visit on earth, Jesus almost daily refuted the
> Jewish Mosaic law and traditions. Jesus deplored the idea that his
> followers would follow the teachings of the Pharisees. Jesus clearly
> rejected the Jewish traditions and condemned the Jews for refusing to
> give up those barbaric traditions. Jesus said in Mark 7-9: "Full well
> ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own
> tradition."
What Jesus was refuting concerning Mosaic law is the fact that the
Pharisees had gone on tangents to the law anyway (Mark 7:7-13).
>
> And today Christians still hold on to those profane traditions of
> Judaism. They still believe and follow the Old Testament. Christians
> still believe in a Jewish God who condones mass slaughter of
> indigenous people to allow the "chosen" to take their land.
> Christians still support murder in the Middle East rather than give up
> the traditions of the Old Testament. Christians today who cling to the
> Old Testament have strayed from the teachings of Jesus.
Again, where are you coming from?
When Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins he rendered the OT laws
concerning animal atonement sacrifices obsolete (Hebrews 10:12,18).
Also, God has made all animals clean for eating (Acts 10:10-16).
M. Clark
Dirk Hartog
>
> During his brief visit on earth, Jesus almost daily refuted the
> Jewish Mosaic law and traditions. Jesus deplored the idea that his
> followers would follow the teachings of the Pharisees. Jesus clearly
> rejected the Jewish traditions and condemned the Jews for refusing to
> give up those barbaric traditions. Jesus said in Mark 7-9: "Full well
> ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own
> tradition."
Why do you imagine you know what Jesus said? It's not really _Jesus'_
words you're repeating, is it? You're really quoting words written
decades later by someone:
-- who doesn't give his name,
-- who never claims to have met Jesus and
-- who never claims to have been a witness to the events.
You're quoting legend.
Can I ask, besides Jesus', are there other "quotations" recorded
decades later by anonymous writers who never claim to have met the
speaker and who never claim to have been within ten miles of the
actual events, are there other "quotations" like that that you believe
are accurate? Can you list a few please?
Dirk Hartog
---------------------
I don't care what you believe.
I care what the evidence is.
I care about the reasoning you use to justify your beliefs.
It is not morally acceptable to say ... our story is truth but yours
is myth; ours is history but yours is a lie. It is even less morally
acceptable to ... manufactur[e] defensive or protective strategies
that apply only to one's own story.
[John Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, 1998, pg 28 - 29]
Leonard Pardin
> leop...@MailAndNews.com (Leonard Pardin) wrote in message news:<d746a243.04090...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> > During his brief visit on earth, Jesus almost daily refuted the
> > Jewish Mosaic law and traditions. Jesus deplored the idea that his
> > followers would follow the teachings of the Pharisees. Jesus clearly
> > rejected the Jewish traditions and condemned the Jews for refusing to
> > give up those barbaric traditions. Jesus said in Mark 7-9: "Full well
> > ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own
> > tradition."
>
>
> Why do you imagine you know what Jesus said? It's not really _Jesus'_
> words you're repeating, is it? You're really quoting words written
> decades later by someone:
> -- who doesn't give his name,
> -- who never claims to have met Jesus and
> -- who never claims to have been a witness to the events.
>
> You're quoting legend.
>
> Can I ask, besides Jesus', are there other "quotations" recorded
> decades later by anonymous writers who never claim to have met the
> speaker and who never claim to have been within ten miles of the
> actual events, are there other "quotations" like that that you believe
> are accurate? Can you list a few please?
>
>
> Dirk Hartog
>
Many "quotations" were repeated, handed down by others, and
recorded long after the original speakers died. For example, the
stories of Homer, and the sayings of Socrates, Confucius, Siddhartha
Gautama, Pythagaros, Appolonius of Rhode, Ypatia, Philippides, etc.
The sayings are not really "quotes, but almost always are paraphrases,
and even paraphrases of translations from other languages. The ideas
survive, but not necessarily the actual words. So let it be with
Jesus.
Jesus probably spoke Aramaic and Greek. The Gospels were written
in Greek, translated to Latin, then translated to English. Some of
Jesus's teachings may have been written down during his life--the
Gospel of Thomas appears to be actual notes of an apostle recording
the words of an admired teacher--but whether or not actual quotations,
the gospels were written down while many eyewitnesses were still alive
and active. They appear for the most part to be consistent, allowing
for the variations to be expected from different authors describing
the same phenomena.
The styles and content are similar. They are short, simple, and
mostly amateurish. They describe a simple man with a simple message.
Jesus of the Gospels commanded no armies, fought no great battles,
performed no heroic deeds. According to the Gospels, Jesus promised no
wealth or fame to his followers. Jesus was a gentle man preaching a
peaceful,loving, and universal God while the surrounding world of the
Jews and the Romans offered violent, jealous, greedy, and vengeful
gods. It is the message of Jesus that survives, not necessarily his
grammar.
And Jesus's message was that the horror tales of the Old Testament
were not the way. Jesus rejected the Old Testament teachings--whether
he spoke elegantly, or whether he simply said it was "bullshit"--his
message comes through in the Gospels. People who want to follow the
path blazed by Jesus should reject the Old Testament.
Pastor Frank
news:acf48a55.04090...@posting.google.com...
> leop...@MailAndNews.com (Leonard Pardin) wrote in message
news:<d746a243.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > During his brief visit on earth, Jesus almost daily refuted the
> > Jewish Mosaic law and traditions. Jesus deplored the idea that his
> > followers would follow the teachings of the Pharisees. Jesus clearly
> > rejected the Jewish traditions and condemned the Jews for refusing to
> > give up those barbaric traditions. Jesus said in Mark 7-9: "Full well
> > ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own
> > tradition."
>
> Why do you imagine you know what Jesus said? It's not really _Jesus'_
> words you're repeating, is it? You're really quoting words written
> decades later by someone:
> -- who doesn't give his name,
> -- who never claims to have met Jesus and
> -- who never claims to have been a witness to the events.
> You're quoting legend.
> Can I ask, besides Jesus', are there other "quotations" recorded
> decades later by anonymous writers who never claim to have met the
> speaker and who never claim to have been within ten miles of the
> actual events, are there other "quotations" like that that you believe
> are accurate? Can you list a few please?
>
men, then how much less would you understand, were you able to hear Him
speak? Christ was known to speak mostly in parables and He is not at all
easy to understand, as His disciples complained already to Him below.
Pastor Frank
PARABLES
Matt 13:10: And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou
unto them in parables?
11: He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know
the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12: For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more
abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he
hath.
13: Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they looking see not;
and listening they hear not, neither do they understand.
14: And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By
listening ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and looking ye shall see,
and shall not perceive: (Is 6:10)
15: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of
hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see
with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their
heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
emjee
Ok, time for proof. Hey, I was an unbeliever too until someone showed me
something in the Bible that could not have been in any way arranged by man.
This is the very thing I was converted by, because it absolutely, positively
cannot be refuted. If you want proof, pick up a Bible and you will find
Jesus Christ's crucifixion was written of in Psalms 22 almost a thousand
years before the fact right down to the Roman soldiers gambling for His
garments. Christs words on the cross "Eli eli lama sabatch-thna" (Which,
btw, is perfect Hebrew save one aramaic verb, which is a very important
point to my argument because the language that was predominately spoken in
that geographical location would have been Greek or Latin, not Hebrew and
certainly not Aramaic) which is to say "My God my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?". It is very important at this point to note that Christ was
NOT praying. How do I know? Nowhere, and I mean nowhere will you find Christ
EVER calling The Father "God". Christ always called The Father "Father". My
point? Christ was quoting Psalms 22 on the cross. He was letting us know
that that prophecy was coming to pass at that very moment right before
everyones eyes. Way back in Psalms 22 it also says "They cast lots for my
vesture", which when you go to Matthew 27, sure enough there it says the
Roman soldiers gambled for His clothing. This is proof positive because both
OLD and New testaments have been provenover and over to be written one
before the other. I am really surprised that this nugget of information
eludes most so-called Christians "Scholars", because it is the ultimate
proof that God is the author of the Bible, not man. It is actual proof, not
just one of the Apostles
claiming it to be so. It is this irrefutable fact that allows Christians to
be so deeply rooted in
their faith, because they dont have to simply take another mans word for it.
And as for us Christians being "Fascinating" , to you, Jonathan, do you have
the same "Fascination" with Muslims? How 'bout Hindu's? I have a feeling
just by the way you write that somehow you like to have a laugh at our
expense. Do you go to Muslim NG's and question their faith?
How 'Bout any other organized religion? I somehow doubt it.
Rafeek
>Jonathan-
I think you're addressing the wrong fella.. I'm the one you're after.
>Ok, time for proof. Hey, I was an unbeliever too until someone showed me
>something in the Bible that could not have been in any way arranged by man.
Really? hmm... interesting.
>This is the very thing I was converted by, because it absolutely, positively
>cannot be refuted. If you want proof, pick up a Bible and you will find
>Jesus Christ's crucifixion was written of in Psalms 22 almost a thousand
>years before the fact right down to the Roman soldiers gambling for His
>garments. Christs words on the cross "Eli eli lama sabatch-thna" (Which,
>btw, is perfect Hebrew save one aramaic verb, which is a very important
>point to my argument because the language that was predominately spoken in
>that geographical location would have been Greek or Latin, not Hebrew and
>certainly not Aramaic) which is to say "My God my God, why hast thou
>forsaken me?". It is very important at this point to note that Christ was
>NOT praying. How do I know? Nowhere, and I mean nowhere will you find Christ
>EVER calling The Father "God". Christ always called The Father "Father". My
>point? Christ was quoting Psalms 22 on the cross. He was letting us know
>that that prophecy was coming to pass at that very moment right before
>everyones eyes. Way back in Psalms 22 it also says "They cast lots for my
>vesture", which when you go to Matthew 27, sure enough there it says the
>Roman soldiers gambled for His clothing.
The gospels were written 40+ years (or so) AFTER christ's death. Does
an account recorded 40 years after the fact really have a whole lot of
credibility, at least concerning specific details (QUOTES)? Also,
don't you think that whoever wrote the gospels was probably pretty
familiar with OT prophecy? And weren't they pretty much pitching a
story about some dude that had come along and fulfilled it? I suppose
I could embellish a story and make it 'fulfill prophecy' if I really
wanted to.
>This is proof positive because both
>OLD and New testaments have been provenover and over to be written one
>before the other.
...right... the OT was written before the NT.... ?????
>I am really surprised that this nugget of information
>eludes most so-called Christians "Scholars", because it is the ultimate
>proof that God is the author of the Bible, not man.
Umm... not really. It's a story claiming that this-and-that happened.
How is that proof of anything?
> It is actual proof, not
>just one of the Apostles
>claiming it to be so. It is this irrefutable fact
Consider your 'fact' refuted.
>that allows Christians to
>be so deeply rooted in
>their faith, because they dont have to simply take another mans word for it.
Are you saying the bible was written by a woman?
>And as for us Christians being "Fascinating" , to you, Jonathan, do you have
>the same "Fascination" with Muslims? How 'bout Hindu's? I have a feeling
>just by the way you write that somehow you like to have a laugh at our
>expense. Do you go to Muslim NG's and question their faith?
>How 'Bout any other organized religion? I somehow doubt it.
Who do you think you are, doubting thomas? Doubt away. Sorry you get
so defensive about your religion... but honestly, when you really
think about it (especially in terms of "PROOF"), it doesn't hold much
water. Oh, and if you really care, YES... I enjoy learning about all
kinds of cultures and religions. Your religion just so happens to be
the most accessible to me, given my residence in an (unofficially)
christian country.
Dirk Hartog
Right. We know the quotations are from Jesus because . . . because
this is exactly the way Jesus spoke. Circular.
From the vast archive of world history you can't list a single
quotation -- not one! -- that you believe is accurate and that has a
reporting history like Jesus'. That's solid proof that your Jesus
"quotations" are not quotations, they're legend.
You can't give reasons, so instead you attack: these are Jesus' words
because . . . because I'm an evil atheist idiot who deliberately
doesn't "understand." Your nasty hatred betrays you: you do see that
having no _reasons_, just superstitions, makes you look foolish.
mclark
First of all, note that regardless that the apostles studied from the
same scroll version of the Scriptures that Jesus did that Luke 24:44-45
indicates that Jesus still had to open their minds to the Scriptures.
So despite their first-hand knowledge of the Scriptures, the gospels
indicate that even the apostles had failed to understand that key events
in Jesus' life were actually fulfilling OT prophecies pertaining to the
first coming of the Messiah.
Also, consider that Jesus indicated in John 16:12-15 that his Holy
Spirit would guide his followers to all truth. So regardless of the
many types of human errors that may have changed the exact words that
Jesus used, Jesus' Holy Spirit works with us so that we can understand
what Jesus and the rest of the Scriptures really mean - that is, if we
allow the Spirit to do so.
Return to God, believing in his son Jesus in faith, and have eternal
life.
M. Clark
>
Dirk Hartog
#1 Uh huh. And, according to your theory, would a poor understanding
of what was going on make their "quotations" more accurate or less
accurate?
#2 Irrelevant, since the gospels themselves do not claim to have been
written by someone who was there.
# 3 Circular. "The fable is true because . . . because the fable says
so."
> Also, consider that Jesus indicated in John 16:12-15 that his Holy
> Spirit would guide his followers to all truth. So regardless of the
> many types of human errors that may have changed the exact words that
> Jesus used, Jesus' Holy Spirit works with us so that we can understand
> what Jesus and the rest of the Scriptures really mean - that is, if we
> allow the Spirit to do so.
>
> Return to God, believing in his son Jesus in faith, and have eternal
> life.
>
Yes, finally you've got it right: the claim isn't reasonable, the
facts make it impossible. It can only be true by magic. The earth is
flat -- the bible says so.
Dirk Hartog
Pastor Frank
news:1gjy5bx.nrnn8rqjiysmN%idont...@toemail.com...
> > this is exactly the way Jesus spoke. Circular.
With that kind of evidence, who could object? "circular" indeed!!!!!
LOL
> > From the vast archive of world history you can't list a single
> > quotation -- not one! -- that you believe is accurate and that has a
> > reporting history like Jesus'. That's solid proof that your Jesus
> > "quotations" are not quotations, they're legend.
> > You can't give reasons, so instead you attack: these are Jesus' words
> > because . . . because I'm an evil atheist idiot who deliberately
> > doesn't "understand." Your nasty hatred betrays you: you do see that
> > having no _reasons_, just superstitions, makes you look foolish.
>
LOL "evil atheist"? Even Philip, one of Christ's disciples was an
atheist for demanding: "show us your god and we will believe!!!". But more
important: If you are an atheist, what are your intentions here in our
pristine religious NGs? Are you here to discuss Christ and His legacy, or
are you here to trash our religion, calling one of the most wide-spread
philosophies of life "superstition", besides calling us "nasty" and
"foolish" etc. etc. ? If you have made up your mind, we both are wasting our
time talking to each other, aren't we? I would suggest you post to atheist
NGs where your unfounded opinions and remarks will earn you cudos and
accolades.
> First of all, note that regardless that the apostles studied from the
> same scroll version of the Scriptures that Jesus did that Luke 24:44-45
> indicates that Jesus still had to open their minds to the Scriptures.
> So despite their first-hand knowledge of the Scriptures, the gospels
> indicate that even the apostles had failed to understand that key events
> in Jesus' life were actually fulfilling OT prophecies pertaining to the
> first coming of the Messiah.
> Also, consider that Jesus indicated in John 16:12-15 that his Holy
> Spirit would guide his followers to all truth. So regardless of the
> many types of human errors that may have changed the exact words that
> Jesus used, Jesus' Holy Spirit works with us so that we can understand
> what Jesus and the rest of the Scriptures really mean - that is, if we
> allow the Spirit to do so.
> Return to God, believing in his son Jesus in faith, and have eternal
> life.
> M. Clark
>
Hallelujah!!!!! You put it very eloquently and succinctly, but like
Christ said: To some it is given to understand the mysteries of the the
Kingdom of God etc. etc. see below for exact quote
> >
> > I don't care what you believe.
> > I care what the evidence is.
> > I care about the reasoning you use to justify your beliefs.
> > It is not morally acceptable to say ... our story is truth but yours
> > is myth; ours is history but yours is a lie. It is even less morally
> > acceptable to ... manufactur[e] defensive or protective strategies
> > that apply only to one's own story.
> > [John Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, 1998, pg 28 - 29]
>
Please note, that our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and
nothing of the above applies to love, for the ONLY evidence of the existence
of love is the action of loving and caring. It is therefore incumbent upon
all Christians who believe the NT of the Bible, to prove the existence of
the God of Christ by our loving and caring actions. Admittedly not many of
us do it very well, but then we want to believe that constant practice makes
perfect. Don't YOU believe that too?
Pastor Frank
Matt 13:10: And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou
unto them in parables?
11: He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know
the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12: For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more
abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he
hath.
13: Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they look, yet see
not;
and listen, yet they hear not, neither do they understand.
14: And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By
listening ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and looking ye shall see,
and shall not perceive:
mclark
[snip]
> > > >
> > > > Pastor Frank
> > >
> > > Right. We know the quotations are from Jesus because . . . because
> > > this is exactly the way Jesus spoke. Circular.
> > >
> > > From the vast archive of world history you can't list a single
> > > quotation -- not one! -- that you believe is accurate and that has a
> > > reporting history like Jesus'. That's solid proof that your Jesus
> > > "quotations" are not quotations, they're legend.
> > >
> > > You can't give reasons, so instead you attack: these are Jesus' words
> > > because . . . because I'm an evil atheist idiot who deliberately
> > > doesn't "understand." Your nasty hatred betrays you: you do see that
> > > having no _reasons_, just superstitions, makes you look foolish.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dirk Hartog
> >
> > First of all, note that regardless that the apostles studied from the
> > same scroll version of the Scriptures that Jesus did that Luke 24:44-45
> > indicates that Jesus still had to open their minds to the Scriptures.
> > So despite their first-hand knowledge of the Scriptures, the gospels
> > indicate that even the apostles had failed to understand that key events
> > in Jesus' life were actually fulfilling OT prophecies pertaining to the
> > first coming of the Messiah.
>
> #1 Uh huh. And, according to your theory, would a poor understanding
> of what was going on make their "quotations" more accurate or less
> accurate?
You missed/ignored the point.
Again, even if you knew how to read Hebrew and Greek, even if you were
to memorize the original Bible scrolls that is no guarantee that you
would understand the Scriptures. But just as Jesus opened his apostles
minds to the Scriptures, Jesus' Holy Spirit now opens our minds to the
Scriptures - if we invite the Spirit to do so. It's the Holy Spirit's
job to guide us to scriptural truths despite any accidental or
deliberate errors that may change the meaning of the original
Scriptures.
>
> #2 Irrelevant, since the gospels themselves do not claim to have been
> written by someone who was there.
The same immortal Holy Spirit that guided and witnessed everything that
Jesus did now witnesses to and guides us with respect to following Jesus
- that is, if we allow the Spirit to do so. But since you reject the
Spirit's guidance with respect to understanding the Scriptures, it's no
surprise that you couldn't imagine an all-powerful God even if you
wanted to.
>
> # 3 Circular. "The fable is true because . . . because the fable says
> so."
The bottom line is that you are rejecting the guidance of Jesus' Holy
Spirit and are consequently no better off that 1 Corinthians 1:18-19 and
2 Peter 3:16.
>
> > Also, consider that Jesus indicated in John 16:12-15 that his Holy
> > Spirit would guide his followers to all truth. So regardless of the
> > many types of human errors that may have changed the exact words that
> > Jesus used, Jesus' Holy Spirit works with us so that we can understand
> > what Jesus and the rest of the Scriptures really mean - that is, if we
> > allow the Spirit to do so.
> >
> > Return to God, believing in his son Jesus in faith, and have eternal
> > life.
> >
>
> Yes, finally you've got it right: the claim isn't reasonable, the
> facts make it impossible. It can only be true by magic. The earth is
> flat -- the bible says so.
Ask the Holy Spirit to open your mind to who Jesus is.
M. Clark
Dirk Hartog
No M. I don't miss your point. Your point is unanswerable because
reasons are irrelevant to magic. Your point is simply your stubborn
superstition that the old myths are true. Facts and reasons don't
matter to you. The myths are your story, and you're sticking with it.
The earth is flat -- the bible says so.
May I say M, your "point" is reflection of how far along the Church is
in it's long decline -- so far that Christians have just given up even
trying to answer rational questions. You can't answer rational
questions. You lose on facts and reasons. So when someone brings up
facts Christians don't like and can't explain, you retreat to "That's
my story and I'm sticking with it." Stubbornness and magic are
Christianity's only arguments.
Magic doesn't work in the modern world. The greater culture laughs at
your flat-earth superstition. That debate is over. Christianity lost.
Your stubborn retreat to mindless superstition betrays the values of
your faith.
mclark
I emphasize with your perspective on reason and magic. However, people
fail to make a distinction between imagination and faith. Indeed, God
chewed on the ancient Israelites for contemplating God with their
imaginations instead of using their faith. So when people like you
express your disdain for religious issues, you are not necessarily off
base as religious people are known for trying to force their
imaginations down people's throats.
On the other hand, you have no basis for denying the convictions of
those who, unlike you, have been willing to test the realities of the
spiritual realm using genuine faith as opposed merely being slaves to
their undisciplined imaginations.
>
> May I say M, your "point" is reflection of how far along the Church is
> in it's long decline -- so far that Christians have just given up even
> trying to answer rational questions. You can't answer rational
> questions. You lose on facts and reasons. So when someone brings up
> facts Christians don't like and can't explain, you retreat to "That's
> my story and I'm sticking with it." Stubbornness and magic are
> Christianity's only arguments.
Please define what you are calling a Christian.
>
> Magic doesn't work in the modern world. The greater culture laughs at
> your flat-earth superstition. That debate is over. Christianity lost.
> Your stubborn retreat to mindless superstition betrays the values of
> your faith.
You're the one who introduced the issue of magic so please define what
you mean by magic. I say you are referring to magic in the same context
that I say undisciplined imagination, which is not faith.
M. Clark
Pastor Frank
news:dq0vj05f4a81pjqtm...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:39:24 GMT, "K-town" <jdu5...@carolina.rr.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Rafeek,
> >Well, we have both spoken our piece, and neither of us have accomplished
> >anything. (I know I can't "force" you to change your mind any more than
you
> >can "force" me to change mine, regardless of what is said) We could drag
> >this on forever, I'm sure, but I'm sure there are others out there that
you
> >can talk to who are much more "fascinating" than myself. ;-) I believe
the
> >Bible to be the Word of God, and therefore, I believe in God.
>
> I guess that's the difference between you and me... I tend not to
> place much credence in claims that have no evidence to back them up.
> That's why I'm so mystified at how christians believe what they do.
>
Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16), we are to be a witness to our God's
existence in every loving word and deed. Perhaps you didn't look hard enough
or not in the right places? It goes without saying, that that invisible
hairy old warrior in the sky most atheists call god and waste their lives
lambasting, doesn't exist.
Pastor Frank
1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE.
1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
GOD IS LOVE; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Rafeek
I'm not necessarily looking for anyone hairy... that actually sounds
kind of gross. Any god will do. Where is the evidence? I guess we
both know that there really isn't any. What many christians think of
as 'evidence' is probably some type of emotional experience they have
during a moving sermon, or something similar. I guess my criteria are
more along scientific lines, which generally doesn't work out when
applied to religion.
Pastor Frank
>
> Magic doesn't work in the modern world. The greater culture laughs at
> your flat-earth superstition. That debate is over. Christianity lost.
> Your stubborn retreat to mindless superstition betrays the values of
> your faith.
>
the great religions / philosophical belief systems of this world, with "flat
earth mindless superstition". All you prove here in our pristine Christian
NGs is that you are profoundly perceptually and philosophically challenged
and totally clueless concerning what Christ is all about.
You should be posting to atheist NGs which are more on your level
spiritually. There your remarks would earn you applause, plaudits, kudos and
accolades, all highly valued by atheists.
I will post you over to some atheist NGs.
Pastor Frank
>
> No M. I don't miss your point. Your point is unanswerable because
> reasons are irrelevant to magic. Your point is simply your stubborn
> superstition that the old myths are true. Facts and reasons don't
> matter to you. The myths are your story, and you're sticking with it.
> The earth is flat -- the bible says so.
> May I say M, your "point" is reflection of how far along the Church is
> in it's long decline -- so far that Christians have just given up even
> trying to answer rational questions. You can't answer rational
> questions. You lose on facts and reasons. So when someone brings up
> facts Christians don't like and can't explain, you retreat to "That's
> my story and I'm sticking with it." Stubbornness and magic are
> Christianity's only arguments.
> Magic doesn't work in the modern world. The greater culture laughs at
> your flat-earth superstition. That debate is over. Christianity lost.
> Your stubborn retreat to mindless superstition betrays the values of
> your faith.
>
are you posting to religious NGs? We can see great meaning and wisdom in the
words of Christ and other great religious reformers who have stirred the
imagination, challenged to high ideals and increased the ardency of the
people's of this world. Sorry to hear you feel out of your depth in our
pristine religious NGs.
I would suggest you try atheist NGs, for anything bad you can say about
religion and the "morons" who believe in it, will earn you applause there,
if not kudos and accolades.
Pastor Frank
SATAN'S MINIONS -people who say they are Christians but do and/or
justify those doing the opposite from what Christ taught.
Jesus in John 8:44: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of
your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode
not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie,
he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Mt:6:21: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Mt:12:34: O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good
things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Mt:12:35: A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth
forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth
evil things.
2Pt:3:3: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days
scoffers, walking after their own lusts.
RainLoverr
<P...@Christfirst.com> wrote:
> Dirk Hartog <thedir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
> > Magic doesn't work in the modern world. The greater culture laughs at
>> your flat-earth superstition. That debate is over. Christianity lost.
>> Your stubborn retreat to mindless superstition betrays the values of
>> your faith.
>>
> I don't believe this. Are you really equating Christianity, being one of
>the great religions / philosophical belief systems of this world, with "flat
>earth mindless superstition".
Many Christians in these newsgoups (but Minority in the real world)
belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old, men and dinosaurs lived
together, all 'evidence' of a much older universe is a lie or fake,
and those pieces of evidence that can't be refuted, GOD put in place
to test one's faith.
Flat earth is the least of your problems.
>All you prove here in our pristine Christian
>NGs is that you are profoundly perceptually and philosophically challenged
>and totally clueless concerning what Christ is all about.
You can't separate the religion from the people... and the Followers
of Christianity have an agenda that is to be spread to NON-christians
whenever possible. THAT is what you are all about, "pastor" Frank.
> You should be posting to atheist NGs which are more on your level
>spiritually.
Ah, the Holier-than-thou philosophy. There's nothing 'pristine' about
you or your philosophy, "pastor". Your god preached AGAINST your type
of follwer.
James, Seattle
Dirk Hartog
#1 Oops Frank, you forgot to put in the reasons. All you put in the
post was your sputtering irrational hatred. These are Jesus words
because . . . because I'm a stupid evil atheist idiot. Your nasty
hatred betrays you Frank: you do see that having no _reasons_, just
superstitions, makes you look foolish.
#2 The word "atheist" is triumphalist. "Atheist" accepts
Christianity's bigoted conceit that only it's magic fables might be
real. "Atheist" celebrates the hatred that butchered millions.
Recognizing that Quetzalcoatl is a myth doesn't make anyone an
atheist. Ditto Jesus, El, Baal, Yahweh, Satan, angels, archangels,
demons, spirits, cherubs, seraphs and all the divinities of the
Christian pantheon.
"Jesus is a myth," isn't about the person who says it; "Jesus is a
myth," is about the myth.
Only bigots talk about "atheists."
Take it to Jesus in prayer Frank. He'll maybe have something else
real hateful shitty you can say.
Dirk Hartog
So, from the vast archive of world history you can't list a single
quotation -- not one! -- that you believe is accurate and that has a
reporting history like Jesus'. That's solid proof that your Jesus
"quotations" are not quotations, they're legend.
You can't give reasons, so instead you attack: these are Jesus' words
because . . . because I'm an evil atheist idiot without your gift of
deep spiritual insight. You can't give reasons, so instead you attack:
these are Jesus' words because . . . because even hearing from evil
atheist idiots is a burden on your dainty spirituality.
Your nasty hatred betrays you Frank: you do see that having no
_reasons_, just superstitions, makes you look foolish.
Take it to Jesus in prayer Frank. He'll maybe have something else
real hateful shitty you can say.
Dirk Hartog
JessHC
Eat shit.
Pastor Frank
Are you kidding me? I own a genuine hand-carved alabaster fertility god
called Figa hailing from Brazil, and if you just care to look a little,
museums are full of objects people worshipped at one time or another as
gods. Libraries contain oodles of books featuring ideas and ideals and their
physical and possible human renditions and examples as gods. They ALL exist.
In fact there is no limit to the number of gods, for anything or anyone
could serve as a god to somebody.
What I tried to say in my previous post is, that Christians are those
who chose love as their ideal to live up to, and Christ as the one who who
demonstrates and represents that principle of quality ideally. Therefore our
Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) fully manifested in Christ Jesus,
who is therefore our God incarnate, God in the flesh.
I guess we
> both know that there really isn't any. What many christians think of
> as 'evidence' is probably some type of emotional experience they have
> during a moving sermon, or something similar. I guess my criteria are
> more along scientific lines, which generally doesn't work out when
> applied to religion.
>
Love is indeed an emotion, but one that we believe to be the most
powerful motivator to do good known to man, and the only one able to make a
person truly happy, joyful and fulfilled. A loving and caring person is
motivated to self-less action in the service of others, doing exactly what
Christ recommends we should be and do. There just isn't anything
"scientific" about being a loving and caring person, and I doubt very much
that the quality of your behaviour are based on "scientific criteria".
Pastor Frank
"GOD" The Christian meaning of the word according to scripture:
Jesus in Jn:4:24: GOD IS A SPIRIT: and they that worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth.
Jesus in John 14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and
the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also:
and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8: Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER;
and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10: Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?
the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that
dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE.
1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
GOD IS LOVE; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Pastor Frank
> leop...@MailAndNews.com (Leonard Pardin) wrote in message
news:<d746a243.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > During his brief visit on earth, Jesus almost daily refuted the
> > Jewish Mosaic law and traditions. Jesus deplored the idea that his
> > followers would follow the teachings of the Pharisees. Jesus clearly
> > rejected the Jewish traditions and condemned the Jews for refusing to
> > give up those barbaric traditions. Jesus said in Mark 7-9: "Full well
> > ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own
> > tradition."
>
> Why do you imagine you know what Jesus said? It's not really _Jesus'_
> words you're repeating, is it? You're really quoting words written
> decades later by someone:
> -- who doesn't give his name,
> -- who never claims to have met Jesus and
> -- who never claims to have been a witness to the events.
> You're quoting legend.
> Can I ask, besides Jesus', are there other "quotations" recorded
> decades later by anonymous writers who never claim to have met the
> speaker and who never claim to have been within ten miles of the
> actual events, are there other "quotations" like that that you believe
> are accurate? Can you list a few please?
> Dirk Hartog
>
and should post these to atheist NGs. I will post you over to them
Pastor Frank
> this is exactly the way Jesus spoke. Circular.
> From the vast archive of world history you can't list a single
> quotation -- not one! -- that you believe is accurate and that has a
> reporting history like Jesus'. That's solid proof that your Jesus
> "quotations" are not quotations, they're legend.
> You can't give reasons, so instead you attack: these are Jesus' words
> because . . . because I'm an evil atheist idiot who deliberately
> doesn't "understand." Your nasty hatred betrays you: you do see that
> having no _reasons_, just superstitions, makes you look foolish.
>
as the philosophy is consistent, nobody questions authenticity except rabid
trashing atheists. Please post your objections to atheist NGs. I will help
you do this
Pastor Frank
Christian NGs. Post your atheism to atheist NG. I will post you over to some
-------------news:acf48a55.04091...@posting.google.com...
Pastor Frank
pristine Christian NGs. Please post your atheism to atheist NGs. I will
post you over to some
Tom
"Pastor Frank" <P...@Christfirst.com> wrote in message
> Just more of your atheist trolling, trashing and flaming in our
pristine
> Christian NGs. Post your atheism to atheist NG. I will post you over to
some
I see that you are unable to answer his points, Frank. Is that why you keep
"posting people over"???
<large snip>
Tom
"Pastor Frank" <P...@Christfirst.com> wrote in message
Gee you're such a help, Frankie. Have you always been this helpful??
Tom
"Pastor Frank" <P...@Christfirst.com> wrote in message
I'm sure he appreciates your "posting him over", but I'm sure he would
appreciate it more if you would address his points. You can do that, can't
you Frankie?
ZenIsWhen
> You just keep copying and pasting the same atheist objections to our
> pristine Christian NGs. Please post your atheism to atheist NGs. I will
> post you over to some
Yo!
Shit for brains .....
AT THE VERY LEAST ..... as long as "christians" exercise the "right" to
bellow about their religion - atheists can use that SAME RIGHT to bellow
atheism!!!
As long as YOU are around, this will NEVER be "pristine".
Bob
"Pastor Frank" <P...@Christfirst.com> wrote in message > Authenticity is
> as the philosophy is consistent, nobody questions authenticity except
> rabid
> trashing atheists. Please post your objections to atheist NGs. I will help
> you do this
>
>
Exactly how isthe philosphy consistant?
Bob
tog
>>
> You are merely repeating atheist mantras in our pristine Christian NGs
> and should post these to atheist NGs. I will post you over to them
>
>
Stop spamming our prisintine atheist NG.s.
The Sophist
> Authenticity is not the point in the Christian belief-system and as long
> as the philosophy is consistent, nobody questions authenticity except rabid
> trashing atheists. Please post your objections to atheist NGs. I will help
> you do this
OK, if the philosophy is consistent, nobody except rabid trashing
atheists question authenticity. Obviously, this is beyond reproach; any
conditional with a false antecedant is true. I'm curious as to what in
fact there is to be said about authenticity, though, if we put such
trivial conditionals aside.
--
Aaron Boyden
The main division between the so-called Continental and Analytic
traditions has been disputes over whether the task of being unclear
should be carried out in natural language or in a formal system.
Rafeek
<P...@Christfirst.com> wrote:
No.
>I own a genuine hand-carved alabaster fertility god
>called Figa hailing from Brazil, and if you just care to look a little,
>museums are full of objects people worshipped at one time or another as
>gods.
Really... does your little statue have supernatural powers?
>Libraries contain oodles of books featuring ideas and ideals and their
>physical and possible human renditions and examples as gods. They ALL exist.
>In fact there is no limit to the number of gods, for anything or anyone
>could serve as a god to somebody.
OK... I guess I should have been more specific. What I'm talking
about is empirical evidence supporting the existence of a supernatural
god. Someone writing a book of ideas about what god might look like
doesn't really qualify.
> What I tried to say in my previous post is, that Christians are those
>who chose love as their ideal to live up to, and Christ as the one who who
>demonstrates and represents that principle of quality ideally. Therefore our
>Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) fully manifested in Christ Jesus,
>who is therefore our God incarnate, God in the flesh.
I see... so you're redefining god, then. God is no longer a magically
invisible guy, now it is an attitude or behavior.
>I guess we
>> both know that there really isn't any. What many christians think of
>> as 'evidence' is probably some type of emotional experience they have
>> during a moving sermon, or something similar. I guess my criteria are
>> more along scientific lines, which generally doesn't work out when
>> applied to religion.
>>
> Love is indeed an emotion, but one that we believe to be the most
>powerful motivator to do good known to man, and the only one able to make a
>person truly happy, joyful and fulfilled. A loving and caring person is
>motivated to self-less action in the service of others, doing exactly what
>Christ recommends we should be and do. There just isn't anything
>"scientific" about being a loving and caring person, and I doubt very much
>that the quality of your behaviour are based on "scientific criteria".
I've never claimed any such thing. My behavior, just like anyone
else's, is a result of my socialization and genetics. I don't need a
supernatural being in order to know how to behave.
Pastor Frank
news:ivegk0tjavl5mu7dm...@4ax.com...
words. For Satan is a liar and habitual adversary. Therefore those possessed
by Satan, i.e. Satan's minions, will say they are Christians, but do the
opposite from what Christ preached. So you need to "separate religion" from
those claiming to be "Followers of Christianity". The only reference for
Christianity is the NT, not those claiming to be Christians.
>
> > You should be posting to atheist NGs which are more on your level
> >spiritually.
>
> Ah, the Holier-than-thou philosophy. There's nothing 'pristine' about
> you or your philosophy, "pastor". Your god preached AGAINST your type
> of follwer.
>
reasoning. You said above that Christianity is mere "superstition". That is
atheism, and unless you now change your mind, my assessment stands.
Pastor Frank
THE ROYAL LAW OF CHRIST
**Jesus in Mk 12:30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength: this is the first commandment.
**31: And the second is alike, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
**Jesus in Mat 22:40 "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
commandments."
THE GOLDEN RULE OF CHRIST
Jesus in Matt. 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them...."
Pastor Frank
news:d58e3ac.04091...@posting.google.com...
flame groups. I will post you over to some
emjee
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:30:30 -0700, "emjee" <em...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Jonathan-
>
> I think you're addressing the wrong fella.. I'm the one you're after.
>
>>Ok, time for proof. Hey, I was an unbeliever too until someone showed me
>>something in the Bible that could not have been in any way arranged by
>>man.
>
> Really? hmm... interesting.
>
>>This is the very thing I was converted by, because it absolutely,
>>positively
>>cannot be refuted. If you want proof, pick up a Bible and you will find
>>Jesus Christ's crucifixion was written of in Psalms 22 almost a thousand
>>years before the fact right down to the Roman soldiers gambling for His
>>garments. Christs words on the cross "Eli eli lama sabatch-thna" (Which,
>>btw, is perfect Hebrew save one aramaic verb, which is a very important
>>point to my argument because the language that was predominately spoken in
>>that geographical location would have been Greek or Latin, not Hebrew and
>>certainly not Aramaic) which is to say "My God my God, why hast thou
>>forsaken me?". It is very important at this point to note that Christ was
>>NOT praying. How do I know? Nowhere, and I mean nowhere will you find
>>Christ
>>EVER calling The Father "God". Christ always called The Father "Father".
>>My
>>point? Christ was quoting Psalms 22 on the cross. He was letting us know
>>that that prophecy was coming to pass at that very moment right before
>>everyones eyes. Way back in Psalms 22 it also says "They cast lots for my
>>vesture", which when you go to Matthew 27, sure enough there it says the
>>Roman soldiers gambled for His clothing.
>
> The gospels were written 40+ years (or so) AFTER christ's death. Does
> an account recorded 40 years after the fact really have a whole lot of
> credibility, at least concerning specific details (QUOTES)?
Oh they were? Are you willing to bet your eternal soul on that? You just
parrot what you have heard someone else say. There is no proof at all as to
exactly what year they were written, but if you choose to believe who ever
told you that its up to you. I am only responsible for passing along the
information. What you choose to do with it after that is completely up to
you and you alone. I will say this however: Either Jesus is the Messiah, the
Saviour of all mankind, or
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and are all flat out lying. If they were
lying, but still believed
Jesus was God, then they sure wouldnt expect to get into Heaven. If they
were lying and DIDNT believe Jesus was God, then why would they have gone
through so much torture and tribulation just so other people would believe a
lie? It would have been much easier to just not get involved. They would not
consciously be willing to burn in hell so that people would believe their
lies. Either He is the Son of Almighty God, or all the people who are
written about that witnessed His miracles are flat out lying. Out of all the
other belief systems, no other religion claims their leader to be the only
begotten son of Almighty God. Christ is the one and only. There were people
right there with Christ who refused to believe
He was Messiah, so its no surprise people today dont!
Also,
> don't you think that whoever wrote the gospels was probably pretty
> familiar with OT prophecy? And weren't they pretty much pitching a
> story about some dude that had come along and fulfilled it? I suppose
> I could embellish a story and make it 'fulfill prophecy' if I really
> wanted to.
>
But what would be your MOTIVE for doing so? Just so you could make fun of
them later
for believing you and taking you at your word? Motivation, whoa "dude", what
a concept.
>>This is proof positive because both
>>OLD and New testaments have been provenover and over to be written one
>>before the other.
>
> ...right... the OT was written before the NT.... ?????
You really dont know, do you? Yes, the Old Testament was written before the
New one, hence the name. It is sad that in this age of "Information" that
man can have so much wisdom in so many other fields, but never in the
history of man has he evr been so ignorant of what God has to say. Do you
have any idea how much less crime and pain
we would have in our society if everyone would at least adhere to the ten
commandments?
>
>>I am really surprised that this nugget of information
>>eludes most so-called Christians "Scholars", because it is the ultimate
>>proof that God is the author of the Bible, not man.
>
> Umm... not really. It's a story claiming that this-and-that happened.
> How is that proof of anything?
>
A person once told you a story about the date of your birth. Just because he
told you what day and year you were born, how is that proof? Why did you
believe that person? Because you trusted them. They would have no reason to
lie to you (Necessarily). My point is that at some point in your life you
have to trust SOMEONE
to tell you the truth about SOMETHING, and believe what they say, we all do.
Whats important is the motive behind their argument. Are they doing it so
they can later prove you wrong and hold you up to public ridicule for
believing such an incredible story? Its very easy to come up with a million
reasons not to believe, thats were faith comes in. If someone has no faith,
they could
find a thousand reasons NOT to believe. The REAL work comes in finding
truth. Truth doesnt just fall in your lap, you have to seek it. If you dont
look for it, you will never find it.
>> It is actual proof, not
>>just one of the Apostles
>>claiming it to be so. It is this irrefutable fact
>
> Consider your 'fact' refuted.
Where? Did I miss something other than your unbelief? There are Greek
manuscripts that are dated and have been proven to be from the time of
Christ. There have been Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament found
thousands of miles apart that dont vary more than a single word that were
dated. Ever hear of the Massoratic manuscripts?.
The Massorah is an ancient text that is perfect Hebrew and are the
manuscripts I mentioned above. There have also been archaeological
excavations in the southeastern US in which was found a keystone that has
the ten commandments in paleo-Hebrew, NOT modern Hebrew. Do a little more
searching before you just write something off.
it is written in the Old Testament that Egypt will ALWAYS be a nation
called by that name.
And so it has. The pyramids are also written of in the Old Testament. in
Isaiah it is written
that "There shall be a pillar ("Matstsebah" which is Hebrew for "Monument")
in the midst of the land, and at the border thereof". There is only one spot
on the face of the earth that complies with both these conditions and it is
the exact spot where the great pyramid stands. The Great Pyramid of Giza is
situated on a line corresponding with the 30 degree North latitude drawn
just south of Cairo, dividing the land into upper and lower Egypt. To the
immediate east of the pyramid is highly cultivated and densely populated, in
which stands the Metropolis of Egypt. To the immediate west of the pyramid,
the sahara desert, nothing but sand for hundreds of miles. Lines produced
from the two diagonals of the Pyramid to the northwest and northeast,
enclose the Nile delta which looks like an open fan with a long handle. The
Delta, or Lower Egypt is the fan; the strip of cultivated land which borders
the nile is the handle. Thus the Great Pyramid is in "The Midst of the land,
and yet at the border of it both geographically and geometrically. The Great
Pyramid was also placed in the exact center of all the land area on earth.
Lines drawn through the north-south and east-west axis of the pyramid divide
equally the earths terrain.
I find it ironic that people like you
have no trouble believing things like evolution (Are you the missing link?)
but dont bother to look around the solar system and see that all the other
planets as far as we can see into space for hundreds of thousands of miles
are desolate and lifeless, yet looking at our planet
from space there is water covering most of the planet. We are the only one.
Why? Do you think its all just a big coincidence? That life on this earth is
just a happenstance? If so, where do YOU think we came from? A primordial
soup? Ok. Where did the primordial soup come from? Life can only come from
life. Life cannot come from anything else. Which came first the chicken or
the egg?
See man cant answer that. How are planets fixed in their position without
falling through space? Man cant answer that either. My point is that there
is alot more to our creation than ANY man will ever know. Only someone who
has complete understanding of the universe can answer those kinds of
questions with any degree of certainty. I am sure you have heard before that
we are here to be tested. Thats the first test. Belief.
>>that allows Christians to
>>be so deeply rooted in
>>their faith, because they dont have to simply take another mans word for
>>it.
>
> Are you saying the bible was written by a woman?
>
Where did I say that?
>>And as for us Christians being "Fascinating" , to you, Jonathan, do you
>>have
>>the same "Fascination" with Muslims? How 'bout Hindu's? I have a feeling
>>just by the way you write that somehow you like to have a laugh at our
>>expense. Do you go to Muslim NG's and question their faith?
>>How 'Bout any other organized religion? I somehow doubt it.
>
> Who do you think you are, doubting thomas? Doubt away. Sorry you get
> so defensive about your religion... but honestly, when you really
> think about it (especially in terms of "PROOF"), it doesn't hold much
> water. Oh, and if you really care, YES... I enjoy learning about all
> kinds of cultures and religions. Your religion just so happens to be
> the most accessible to me, given my residence in an (unofficially)
> christian country.
>Why do you feel the need to LIE? You have access to the WWW, and its
>"Because of your location" that Christianity is the most accesible. Like
>your limited in studying other religions because of where you live.
>Rigghhht.
And even though you cant stand it, The US IS officially a Christian nation,
and I am happy for that. I suppose its just a coincidence that we happen to
be the biggest Christian nation in the world, and also the "Super-power of
super-powers".
But hey, you know better. Take a coin out of your pocket (If you have one)
einstein. Does it not say "In God We Trust"? Our constitution was taken from
the Bible. There are signs of Christianity all over this countrys heritage.
You are ignorant of this fact, so of course to you it is just not so. When
George Washington was asked who would be America's king what was his reply?
Let me inform you. He said "We already have a King, God is our King".
Hector Plasmic
> Christ said: "By their action ye shall know them", meaning
> not by their words. For Satan is a liar
Well, now, Frankie, what are lies, if not words?
By the way, keep this in mind -- by your actions we know you. And, as
with Satan, also by your words. Things ain't lookin' too good for you
in the afterlife, Frankie.
K-town
news:VqGdnbpAcMg...@comcast.com...
Amen! I bet most people don't know this either: When the Declaration of
Independence was written, the writers cited 27 Biblical violations against
the king of England. Of the 55 men who formed the Constitution, 52 were
active members in their church; founding fathers like Noah Webster (yes, the
dictionary guy) could literally quote the Bible, chapter and verse. "Give
me liberty, or give me death", Patrick Henry also said, "Our country was
founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Thomas Jefferson called the Bible
the "Cornerstone for American Liberty." James Madison said, "We've staked
our future in our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all our
hearts." These men believed you couldn't even call yourself an American if
you subvert the Word of God.
Jonathan
Tom
"K-town" <jdu5...@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:fQD2d.25959$ci3.6...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
And you probably don't either, if your American history knowledge is as
sharp as your knowledge of the human body.
> When the Declaration of
> Independence was written, the writers cited 27 Biblical violations against
> the king of England.
Cite? Please give the site that has these violations. I'm not particularly
questioning them, I just want to see them.
> Of the 55 men who formed the Constitution, 52 were
> active members in their church;
Cite?
> founding fathers like Noah Webster (yes, the
> dictionary guy) could literally quote the Bible, chapter and verse.
Good for Noah, so could a lot of people in that era.
> "Give
> me liberty, or give me death", Patrick Henry also said, "Our country was
> founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
Fine for Patrick.
> Thomas Jefferson called the Bible
> the "Cornerstone for American Liberty."
Mmm... I wonder if he was referring to his Jeffersonian bible?
> James Madison said, "We've staked
> our future in our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all our
> hearts." These men believed you couldn't even call yourself an American
if
> you subvert the Word of God.
This was also the way Madison thought, "Strongly guarded as is the
separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United
States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be
illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
Madison was perhaps the strongest proponent of the separation of religion
and government in the early US
The question of the opinions and religions of the founding fathers has been
beaten to death on the internet by both sides and the result has been a
waste of time. The only way to determine how these highly religious persons
felt about their religion and their government is to show the large number
of concessions that were given to Christianity in the Constitution. If, has
the lunatic fundies would have us think, the founding fathers were
slobbering Christians then we should find a record of this established in
government. Do we find this? No! Case closed.
Pastor Frank
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:35:30 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <P...@Christfirst.com> wrote:
> >
> > Love is indeed an emotion, but one that we believe to be the most
> >powerful motivator to do good known to man, and the only one able to make
a
> >person truly happy, joyful and fulfilled. A loving and caring person is
> >motivated to self-less action in the service of others, doing exactly
what
> >Christ recommends we should be and do. There just isn't anything
> >"scientific" about being a loving and caring person, and I doubt very
much
> >that the quality of your behaviour are based on "scientific criteria".
>
> I've never claimed any such thing. My behavior, just like anyone
> else's,
"Just like anyone else"? Who would that be on a scale from Hitler to
Gandhi?
> is a result of my socialization and genetics. I don't need a
> supernatural being in order to know how to behave.
>
"Supernatural" is only so in the eyes of the beholder. To everyone else
it may be perfectly natural. To a lover the object of his love is always
"supernatural", or are you too pedestrian for such sublime opinions? However
since "socialization and genetics" produce a great range of behaviours,
anything from Mother Teresa to Pol Pot, your attempt to apply your personal
lack of "need to know how to behave" to everybody is erroneous.
If everybody was like you, we might be able to do away with the police,
perhaps even dispense with the entire justice system. Mothers might even
afford to quit trying to raise "good" boys and girls, and ethics and
morality based on Biblical principles may also be dispensed with. Is that
what you recommend and would you like to live in a helter skelter anarchist
world, where everybody else also "knows how to behave" in his own eyes?
Pastor Frank
Pastor Frank
news:GAm2d.120686$4h7.20...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
won't be judged. Judge actions only, for by their actions ye shall know
them. etc. etc. too many principles to list from memory. If you can read and
comprehend what you read, you should look at the NT of the bible and
especially the words of Jesus. See below how Jesus defines the word "god" to
Philip, and you can see Him making sense on a most difficult subject.
Hector Plasmic
>> Exactly how is the philosphy consistant?
> etc. etc. too many principles to list from memory.
Listing "principles" doesn't show how the "philosophy" is supposedly
consistent, which is what he asked you to do. And noting that there
are too many "principles" to list from memory doesn't much help your
case, either.
I mean, do you just mean that your religion is consistently goofy,
maybe?
K-town
news:10kmkjp...@corp.supernews.com...
The reason why they wanted church and state to be separate is because they
didn't want to have corrupt church figures (like bishops, priests, etc) to
have power over the people. If that were the case, the corrupt individuals
would be able to fabricate any sort of legislation they so desired and say,
"Well, God told me to do it." For example, if you look back into medieval
times, the church had the power to excommunicate people for whatever reason.
The founding fathers did not want things like that to happen.
> Madison was perhaps the strongest proponent of the separation of religion
> and government in the early US
See above as to why...
> The question of the opinions and religions of the founding fathers has
> been
> beaten to death on the internet by both sides and the result has been a
> waste of time. The only way to determine how these highly religious
> persons
> felt about their religion and their government is to show the large number
> of concessions that were given to Christianity in the Constitution. If,
> has
> the lunatic fundies would have us think, the founding fathers were
> slobbering Christians then we should find a record of this established in
> government. Do we find this? No! Case closed.
Hey, are you following me around, or what? It seems you indeed like trying
to refute or contest everything I say. If I say that water is necessary to
sustain life, are you going to try and prove me wrong on that too? ;-)
Jonathan
Rafeek
Mark was written around 70 AD, and the other three gospels were
written later. That is the current consensus among reputable
scholars, based on the evidence. Feel free to look it up... this
information is widely available.
>I am only responsible for passing along the
>information. What you choose to do with it after that is completely up to
>you and you alone. I will say this however: Either Jesus is the Messiah, the
>Saviour of all mankind, or
>Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and are all flat out lying.
"Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" aren't the people that wrote those
books, dude. Get with the program. You might want to consider
getting some information from sources outside of sunday school... like
from people with this thing called a "PhD". That means they have had
a good deal of education, and know a lot of stuff!
>If they were
>lying, but still believed
>Jesus was God, then they sure wouldnt expect to get into Heaven. If they
>were lying and DIDNT believe Jesus was God, then why would they have gone
>through so much torture and tribulation just so other people would believe a
>lie? It would have been much easier to just not get involved. They would not
>consciously be willing to burn in hell so that people would believe their
>lies. Either He is the Son of Almighty God, or all the people who are
>written about that witnessed His miracles are flat out lying.
<sigh> ... the gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts. Once again,
please educate yourself a little.
>Out of all the
>other belief systems, no other religion claims their leader to be the only
>begotten son of Almighty God.
So? How is this relevant to anything? That's like saying "out of all
the countries in the world, the U.S. is the only one with a capitol
called Washington, D.C." Thanks for the fun fact!
>Christ is the one and only. There were people
>right there with Christ who refused to believe
>He was Messiah, so its no surprise people today dont!
Most people who were around at the time of christ didn't believe that
he was the messiah. Doesn't that tell you something?
>Also,
>> don't you think that whoever wrote the gospels was probably pretty
>> familiar with OT prophecy? And weren't they pretty much pitching a
>> story about some dude that had come along and fulfilled it? I suppose
>> I could embellish a story and make it 'fulfill prophecy' if I really
>> wanted to.
>>
>But what would be your MOTIVE for doing so? Just so you could make fun of
>them later
>for believing you and taking you at your word? Motivation, whoa "dude", what
>a concept.
I'm not really interested in their motives. I'm simply showing you
that if someone writes a story and throws in a few details that
'fulfill prophecy,' it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
>>>This is proof positive because both
>>>OLD and New testaments have been provenover and over to be written one
>>>before the other.
>>
>> ...right... the OT was written before the NT.... ?????
>
>You really dont know, do you? Yes, the Old Testament was written before the
>New one, hence the name. It is sad that in this age of "Information" that
>man can have so much wisdom in so many other fields, but never in the
>history of man has he evr been so ignorant of what God has to say. Do you
>have any idea how much less crime and pain
>we would have in our society if everyone would at least adhere to the ten
>commandments?
I think it would be great if everyone followed the commandments
(except for the ones dealing with religious practices).
>>>I am really surprised that this nugget of information
>>>eludes most so-called Christians "Scholars", because it is the ultimate
>>>proof that God is the author of the Bible, not man.
>>
>> Umm... not really. It's a story claiming that this-and-that happened.
>> How is that proof of anything?
>>
>A person once told you a story about the date of your birth. Just because he
>told you what day and year you were born, how is that proof? Why did you
>believe that person? Because you trusted them.
I've also seen my birth certificate and heard eyewitness accounts.
There is no such evidence in the gospels.
>They would have no reason to
>lie to you (Necessarily). My point is that at some point in your life you
>have to trust SOMEONE
>to tell you the truth about SOMETHING, and believe what they say, we all do.
>Whats important is the motive behind their argument. Are they doing it so
>they can later prove you wrong and hold you up to public ridicule for
>believing such an incredible story? Its very easy to come up with a million
>reasons not to believe, thats were faith comes in.
So let me get this straight... you understand that there are a million
reasons NOT to believe what you do, but you still believe it anyway?
You call it "faith"?? Another word comes to mind...
>If someone has no faith,
>they could
>find a thousand reasons NOT to believe. The REAL work comes in finding
>truth. Truth doesnt just fall in your lap, you have to seek it. If you dont
>look for it, you will never find it.
I'm not sure what your criteria are for finding answers to
questions... but mine involve investigation and evidence. Have you
taken a science course?
>>> It is actual proof, not
>>>just one of the Apostles
>>>claiming it to be so. It is this irrefutable fact
>>
>> Consider your 'fact' refuted.
>
>Where? Did I miss something other than your unbelief? There are Greek
>manuscripts that are dated and have been proven to be from the time of
>Christ. There have been Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament found
>thousands of miles apart that dont vary more than a single word that were
>dated. Ever hear of the Massoratic manuscripts?.
>The Massorah is an ancient text that is perfect Hebrew and are the
>manuscripts I mentioned above. There have also been archaeological
>excavations in the southeastern US in which was found a keystone that has
>the ten commandments in paleo-Hebrew, NOT modern Hebrew.
That's interesting... do you have any references for this info? (I'm
sure you're not just "parroting," as you accused me of doing!)
>Do a little more
>searching before you just write something off.
> it is written in the Old Testament that Egypt will ALWAYS be a nation
>called by that name.
>And so it has. The pyramids are also written of in the Old Testament. in
>Isaiah it is written
>that "There shall be a pillar ("Matstsebah" which is Hebrew for "Monument")
>in the midst of the land, and at the border thereof". There is only one spot
>on the face of the earth that complies with both these conditions and it is
>the exact spot where the great pyramid stands. The Great Pyramid of Giza is
>situated on a line corresponding with the 30 degree North latitude drawn
>just south of Cairo, dividing the land into upper and lower Egypt. To the
>immediate east of the pyramid is highly cultivated and densely populated, in
>which stands the Metropolis of Egypt. To the immediate west of the pyramid,
>the sahara desert, nothing but sand for hundreds of miles. Lines produced
>from the two diagonals of the Pyramid to the northwest and northeast,
>enclose the Nile delta which looks like an open fan with a long handle. The
>Delta, or Lower Egypt is the fan; the strip of cultivated land which borders
>the nile is the handle. Thus the Great Pyramid is in "The Midst of the land,
>and yet at the border of it both geographically and geometrically. The Great
>Pyramid was also placed in the exact center of all the land area on earth.
>Lines drawn through the north-south and east-west axis of the pyramid divide
>equally the earths terrain.
Nostradamus made some predictions that came true, too. Does that mean
that he's the nephew of god or something? Probably not.
>I find it ironic that people like you
>have no trouble believing things like evolution
Umm... newsflash: the only people who don't accept the validity of
evolution are wacky religious fundamentalists.
> (Are you the missing link?)
>but dont bother to look around the solar system and see that all the other
>planets as far as we can see into space for hundreds of thousands of miles
>are desolate and lifeless, yet looking at our planet
>from space there is water covering most of the planet. We are the only one.
>Why? Do you think its all just a big coincidence? That life on this earth is
>just a happenstance? If so, where do YOU think we came from? A primordial
>soup? Ok. Where did the primordial soup come from? Life can only come from
>life. Life cannot come from anything else. Which came first the chicken or
>the egg?
Where did god come from?
>See man cant answer that. How are planets fixed in their position without
>falling through space? Man cant answer that either. My point is that there
>is alot more to our creation than ANY man will ever know. Only someone who
>has complete understanding of the universe can answer those kinds of
>questions with any degree of certainty.
Well, someone with a rudimentary understanding of science might at
least be able to have a meaningful conversation on scientific matters.
You might want to look into a little education.
>I am sure you have heard before that
>we are here to be tested. Thats the first test. Belief.
...and you've failed. You believe in something with the full
knowledge that there are "a million reasons not to believe" (your
words).
>>>that allows Christians to
>>>be so deeply rooted in
>>>their faith, because they dont have to simply take another mans word for
>>>it.
>>
>> Are you saying the bible was written by a woman?
>>
>
>Where did I say that?
>
>>>And as for us Christians being "Fascinating" , to you, Jonathan, do you
>>>have
>>>the same "Fascination" with Muslims? How 'bout Hindu's? I have a feeling
>>>just by the way you write that somehow you like to have a laugh at our
>>>expense. Do you go to Muslim NG's and question their faith?
>>>How 'Bout any other organized religion? I somehow doubt it.
>>
>> Who do you think you are, doubting thomas? Doubt away. Sorry you get
>> so defensive about your religion... but honestly, when you really
>> think about it (especially in terms of "PROOF"), it doesn't hold much
>> water. Oh, and if you really care, YES... I enjoy learning about all
>> kinds of cultures and religions. Your religion just so happens to be
>> the most accessible to me, given my residence in an (unofficially)
>> christian country.
>>Why do you feel the need to LIE? You have access to the WWW, and its
>>"Because of your location" that Christianity is the most accesible. Like
>>your limited in studying other religions because of where you live.
>>Rigghhht.
>And even though you cant stand it, The US IS officially a Christian nation,
Really... I must have missed that somehow. Do you have any evidence
to support your claim?
>and I am happy for that. I suppose its just a coincidence that we happen to
>be the biggest Christian nation in the world, and also the "Super-power of
>super-powers".
...so to you that indicates that your imaginary friend is real?
Hmm... interesting.
>But hey, you know better. Take a coin out of your pocket (If you have one)
>einstein. Does it not say "In God We Trust"?
What do you think this is, a theocracy? Back to school for you... I
hope nobody paid to educate you. If so, you owe them a refund.
>Our constitution was taken from
>the Bible.
!!! That's a good one.
>There are signs of Christianity all over this countrys heritage.
I agree!
>You are ignorant of this fact, so of course to you it is just not so. When
>George Washington was asked who would be America's king what was his reply?
>Let me inform you. He said "We already have a King, God is our King".
Wow... so according to you, the USA is a theocracy. Amazing.
Unfortunately, you've demonstrated to us all that Ignorance is your
king.
Rafeek
wrote:
>Amen! I bet most people don't know this either: When the Declaration of
>Independence was written, the writers cited 27 Biblical violations against
>the king of England. Of the 55 men who formed the Constitution, 52 were
>active members in their church; founding fathers like Noah Webster (yes, the
>dictionary guy) could literally quote the Bible, chapter and verse. "Give
>me liberty, or give me death", Patrick Henry also said, "Our country was
>founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Thomas Jefferson called the Bible
>the "Cornerstone for American Liberty." James Madison said, "We've staked
>our future in our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all our
>hearts." These men believed you couldn't even call yourself an American if
>you subvert the Word of God.
Neither Noah Webster, Patrick Henry, nor Thomas Jefferson were at the
constitutional convention, and you'll find none of their signatures on
the document. Thomas Jefferson was NOT a christian... in fact, here
are a few quotations:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there
be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of
blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and
doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and
such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of
other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause,
to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New
Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded
from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of
very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick
out diamonds from dunghills."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
-Thomas Jefferson, in _Toward the Mystery_
Here's some James Madison:
Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption,
all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.
-James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., January 1774
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already
furnished in their short history [attempts where religious bodies had
already tried to encroach on the government].
-James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect.
-James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1,1774, as
quoted by Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New
Nation, San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1987, p. 37
Tom
> > The question of the opinions and religions of the founding fathers has
> > been
> > beaten to death on the internet by both sides and the result has been a
> > waste of time. The only way to determine how these highly religious
> > persons
> > felt about their religion and their government is to show the large
number
> > of concessions that were given to Christianity in the Constitution. If,
> > has
> > the lunatic fundies would have us think, the founding fathers were
> > slobbering Christians then we should find a record of this established
in
> > government. Do we find this? No! Case closed.
> Hey, are you following me around, or what? It seems you indeed like
>trying to refute or contest everything I say. If I say that water is
necessary
>to sustain life, are you going to try and prove me wrong on that too? ;-)
> Jonathan
Nope, I'm not following you, I have been here for four years, how about you?
I only point out where I think you have been unable to correctly state the
reasons for a position you might have. You also have a bad habit of stating
the obvious in your simplistic explanations :-).
Pastor Fank
news:2c0a0281.04091...@posting.google.com...
"consistently" are unable to show or list what's NOT "goofy" are
demonstrating goofiness. To show that your opinion is NOT "goofy", or at
least less goofy than mine, needs you to contrast, not just contradict.
Anyone lacking rhyme nor reason can be a contrarian goofball.
We praise our Lord, that in Him we can see perfection, as demonstrated
in Christ on the cross of Calvary, where the world only seeks and gets to
see imperfection wherever it looks. That is what it's like in the "outer
darkness" where there is eternal "wailing" of complaints and angry "gnashing
of teeth", etc.
Pastor Frank
Jesus in Mt:8:12: But the children of Satan's kingdom shall be cast out
into outer darkness: There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Rom. 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is
eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
K-town
> <snip for brevity>
>> > The question of the opinions and religions of the founding fathers has
>> > been
>> > beaten to death on the internet by both sides and the result has been a
>> > waste of time. The only way to determine how these highly religious
>> > persons
>> > felt about their religion and their government is to show the large
> number
>> > of concessions that were given to Christianity in the Constitution. If,
>> > has
>> > the lunatic fundies would have us think, the founding fathers were
>> > slobbering Christians then we should find a record of this established
> in
>> > government. Do we find this? No! Case closed.
>
>> Hey, are you following me around, or what? It seems you indeed like
>>trying to refute or contest everything I say. If I say that water is
> necessary
>>to sustain life, are you going to try and prove me wrong on that too? ;-)
>
>> Jonathan
>
> Nope, I'm not following you, I have been here for four years, how about
> you?
Nope...I haven't even been here 4 weeks yet. I just thought it made sense
for a Christian such as myself to contribute to a NG titled
alt.religion.christianity :-)
> I only point out where I think you have been unable to correctly state the
> reasons for a position you might have. You also have a bad habit of
> stating
> the obvious in your simplistic explanations :-).
I'll work on that... ;-)
Jonathan
K-town
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:58:03 GMT, "K-town" <jdu5...@carolina.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Amen! I bet most people don't know this either: When the Declaration of
>>Independence was written, the writers cited 27 Biblical violations against
>>the king of England. Of the 55 men who formed the Constitution, 52 were
>>active members in their church; founding fathers like Noah Webster (yes,
>>the
>>dictionary guy) could literally quote the Bible, chapter and verse. "Give
>>me liberty, or give me death", Patrick Henry also said, "Our country was
>>founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Thomas Jefferson called the Bible
>>the "Cornerstone for American Liberty." James Madison said, "We've staked
>>our future in our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all our
>>hearts." These men believed you couldn't even call yourself an American
>>if
>>you subvert the Word of God.
>
> Neither Noah Webster, Patrick Henry, nor Thomas Jefferson were at the
> constitutional convention, and you'll find none of their signatures on
> the document. Thomas Jefferson was NOT a christian... in fact, here
> are a few quotations:
My bad on punctuation...I should have put a period instead of a semicolon.
That is supposed to be two completely separate sentences, and therefore not
putting NW, TJ, or PH at the Constitutional Convention. :-) (I hated
English class)
Whoa...If that's the case, I suppose I need to check my source and see where
they got their information from.
Jonathan
P.S. Yes, my original post about the founding fathers was "hearsay"... ;-)
K-town
>>news:bia5k056ieglvc0n4...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:30:30 -0700, "emjee" <em...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jonathan-
>>>
>>> I think you're addressing the wrong fella.. I'm the one you're after.
<snip>
>>>>And as for us Christians being "Fascinating" , to you, Jonathan, do you
>>>>have
>>>>the same "Fascination" with Muslims? How 'bout Hindu's? I have a feeling
>>>>just by the way you write that somehow you like to have a laugh at our
>>>>expense. Do you go to Muslim NG's and question their faith?
>>>>How 'Bout any other organized religion? I somehow doubt it.
See above. Rafeek is who said he found Christians fascinating...not I. I
am a Christian, and have been for the past 20 years. With all due respect,
I suggest you be sure you're addressing the correct party before using
names.
<snip>
Jonathan
Tom
For a fundie Christian, you're not bad a bad fellow, Jonathan :-).
K-town
You're not too bad yourself...for an atheist. ;-)
Pastor Fank
Christian NGs have been overrun by atheists for too long a time, and when
you find one that can only contradict and refute, without ever advocating
anything or anyone, nor stating what the poster himself believes in, you
know you got yourself one of Satan's minor minions whose only mission in
life is to STOP having the name of Christ mentioned.
Any and all methods will suffice, specially dishing our personal insults
and flaming you, trying to get you to respond in kind. There is nothing
personal in that, It's just another method to get you stop mentioning the
name of Christ and His holy and inerrant words.
Be glad when the devil's mad, and shout the glories of our saviour from
the very roof tops, ignoring the snide and sour. Hallelujah, and may His
name be ever praised!!!!!!
Pastor Frank
THE MANDATE OF JESUS
**Jesus in Lk:4:18: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of
sight to the blind.
**Jesus in Mk:2:17: When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are
whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to
call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
**Jesus in Lk:9:56: For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives,
but to save them.
**Jesus Mt:18:11: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
**Jesus in Jn:12:47: And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge
him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
**Jesus in Mt:11:28-30 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened,
and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am
gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my
yoke is easy and my burden is light."
Pastor Fank
> >>"Rafeek" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >>news:bia5k056ieglvc0n4...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:30:30 -0700, "emjee" <em...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Jonathan-
> >>>
> >>> I think you're addressing the wrong fella.. I'm the one you're after.
>
> <snip>
>
> >>>>And as for us Christians being "Fascinating" , to you, Jonathan, do
you
> >>>>have
> >>>>the same "Fascination" with Muslims? How 'bout Hindu's? I have a
feeling
> >>>>just by the way you write that somehow you like to have a laugh at our
> >>>>expense. Do you go to Muslim NG's and question their faith?
> >>>>How 'Bout any other organized religion? I somehow doubt it.
>
> See above. Rafeek is who said he found Christians fascinating...not I. I
> am a Christian, and have been for the past 20 years.
>
all were born atheist -without the knowledge of God, but praise the Lord,
only a few stay that way. You will find most atheist refuters in our
pristine religious NGs are severly perceptually and philosophically
challenged. They are like Philip in John 14:8 demanding of Christ: "We will
believe you when you show us this Father you keep talking about." See below
Tom
"Pastor Fank" <P...@Christfirst.com> wrote in message
news:1095657340.NLiG7LZ8wCuOBuG95/K7zA@teranews...
Thank you very much "Pastor Fank". I love your new handle, by the way. The
only thing that would be better would be if you had used "Fink" instead of
"Fank".
The only way I came into your "pristine" Christian NG was by following one
of your angelic Christians as he left an atheist group several years ago.
Until then I had no idea that wankers such as you, existed in reality.
Tom
"Pastor Fank" <P...@Christfirst.com> wrote in message
No Frankie, you weren't born an atheist. We are born neither atheist nor
theist.
K-town
You don't have to worry about that. :-) What I meant I'd work on when
speaking to "Tom" was "stating the obvious in my simplistic explanations."
He is right about that. I do tend to be too verbose fairly often. But as
far as my faith is concerned, I stand by Romans 8:38-39, and the lyrics to a
song by the group '4-Him': "I won't bend, and I won't break, and I won't
water-down my faith. I won't compromise in a world of desparation." I've
been a blood-bought, born-again Christian for 20 years, and my eyes have
seen the miracles and the glory of the Lord. Nothing any atheist or
"doubting Thomas" can say or do would ever cause my faith in God and His
Son, Jesus Christ, to falter.
Jonathan
Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I
am." (John 8:58)